£vbrar;p  of  Che  Cheolo^ical  ^etnmar^ 

PRINCETON  • NEW  JERSEY 
PRESENTED  BY 

Mrs.  John  D,  Davis 


r BT  590  .N2  W2  c.T  ^ 

Warfield,  Benjamin 
Breckinridge,  1851-1921. 
The  Lord  of  glory 


THE  LORD  OF  GLORY 


The  Lord  of  G! 


A STUDY  OF 


THE  DESIGNATIONS  OF  OUR  LORD  IN 
THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  WITH 
ESPECIAL  REFERENCE 
TO  HIS  DEITY 


BENJAMIN  B.  ‘WARFIELD 


Professor  in  Princeton  Theological  Seminary 


1907 


AMERICAN  TRACT  SOCIETY 

150  Nassau  Street  New  York 


Copyright,  1907,  by 
AMERICAN  TRACT  SOCIETY 


To 


William  Park  Armstrong,  Jr. 
Caspar  Wistar  Hodge,  Jr. 


M Ad H TAIN  ■ irNEPFOIN  ■ AIAAIKAAOIN 
lYNAOrAOIN  OMOWrXOIN 
XAPIN  EXQN. 


Plurima  quasivi,  per  singula  quaque  cucurri, 
Sed  nihil  inveni  melius  quam  credere  Christo, 

— Paulinus  of  Nola. 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

Introductory  . . . . . . • i 

Pervasive  Witness  of  the  N.  T.  to  Christ,  i — 

Scope  of  this  Discussion,  2 — Designations  of  our 
Lord  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  3 — Starting  Point 
of  the  Survey,  4. 

The  Designations  of  our  Lord  in  Mark  . 5 

Narrative  Designation,  5 — Popular  Designation, 

6 — Formulas  of  Address,  6 — Significance  of 

‘ Teacher  ’,  8 — Significance  of  ‘ Lord  ’,  9 — Mes- 
sianic Designations,  12 — Jesus  Christ  14 — 

‘The  Christ’,  15 — Anarthrous  ‘Christ’,  16 — 

Royal  Titles,  17 — ‘ Son  of  God  ’,  19 — ‘ The  Son 
21 — Our  Lord’s  Own  Testimony  to  His  Messiah- 
ship,  23 — '‘  Son  of  Man  ’,  25 — Usage  of  ‘ Son  of 
Man  ’,  28 — Meaning  of  ‘ Son  of  Man  ’,  29. 

Mark’s  Conception  of  our  Lord  . . 32 

A Divine  Intervention  in  Christ,  32 — Christ’s  Life 
Thoroughly  Supernatural,  33 — Jesus  the  Messiah, 

34 — Jesus’  Person  Enhances  His  Designations, 

36 — Jesus  a Superangelic  Person,  36 — Jesus  of 
Heavenly  Origin,  38 — Jesus’  Earthly  Life  a 
Mission,  39 — Jesus’  Functions  Divine,  41 — ^The 
Uniqueness  of  Jesus’  Sonship,  42 — Jesus  As- 
similated to  Jehovah,  45 — Jesus  Identified  with 
Jehovah,  47 — Mark’s  Method,  50 — Mark’s  Silence, 

51 — Mark’s  Conception  of  the  Messiahship,  53. 

The  Designations  of  our  Lord  in  Matthew  57 

The  Narrative  Name,  and  Exceptions,  57 — 

‘ Christ  ’ as  a Proper  Name,  59 — Why  so  Seldom 
Used,  62 — Jesus’  Popular  Name,  63 — Early  Use 
vii 


Contents 


PAGE 


vlli 


of  ‘ Christ  ’ as  a Proper  Name,  64 — Simple  Hon- 
orific Addresses,  66 — ‘ Master  of  the  House  ’ 68 — 
‘ Lord  ’ as  an  Address,  69 — ‘ Lord  ’ as  an  Appel- 
lation, 72 — Messianic  Titles,  73 — Our  Lord’s 
Own  Messianic  Claims,  74 — The  Simple  Messi- 
anic Designations,  76 — Meaning  of  ‘the  Son  of 
God  ’1  78 — Culminating  Assertions,  81 — Less  Com- 
mon Messianic  Titles,  83 — ‘ The  Son  of  Man  84 
— The  High  Meaning  of  ‘ Son  of  Man  87. 


Matthew’s  Conception  of  our  Lord  . 89 

Profundity  of  Matthew’s  Suggestiveness,  89 — Rich- 
ness of  His  Implications,  91 — Assimilation  of  Jesus 
with  God,  92 — Identification  of  Jesus  with  God, 

93 — Participation  of  Jesus  in  the  Name,  94. 


The  Designations  of  our  Lord  in  Luke 

AND  THEIR  IMPLICATIONS  . . • 97 

The  Narrative  Designations,  97 — Ordinary  Forms 
of  Address,  99 — ‘ Master  ’,  100 — ‘ Lord  ’ as  an 
Address,  lOi — ‘ Lord  ’ as  an  Appellative,  102 — 
Significance  of  ‘ Lord  ’,  104 — The  ‘ Prophet 

106 — ‘ Saviour  107 — ‘ The  Lord’s  Christ  ’,109 — 

‘The  King’,  1 12— ‘God’s  Elect’,  1 13— ‘God’s 
Holy  One’,  113 — Meaning  of  ‘Holy’,  115 — 

‘ The  Son  ’,  117 — ‘ The  Son  of  Man  ’,  119 — ^Jesus’ 
Mission,  122 — The  ‘ Bridegroom  ’,  123. 

The  Jesus  of  the  Sy.noptists  . . ..  125 

Variety  of  Titles  Used,  125 — Extent  of  Jewish 
Use,  126 — Old  Testament  Foundation,  127 — 

Jesus’  Messianic  Claims,  128 — Divergence  from 
Current  Expectations,  129 — ^Transfigured  Con- 
ception of  Messiah,  13 1 — Highest  Designations, 

133 — Meaning  of  ‘ Son  of  Man  ’,  135 — Meaning 
of  ‘Son  of  God’,  137 — Meaning  of  ‘Lord’, 

140 — Synoptical  Christ  Divine,  145. 


Contents 

The  Jesus  of  the  Synoptists  the  Primitive 

Jesus  ...... 

Significance  of  Synoptical  Testimony,  146 — Date 
of  the  Synoptics,  146 — Earlier  Documentary  Basis, 
147 — The  Sources  of  the  Synoptics,  148 — Chris- 
tology  of  the  Primitive  Mark,  149 — Other  Possible 
Elements  in  the  Primitive  Mark,  152 — Christology 
of  the  ‘ Primitive  Sayings’,  153 — Resort  to  ‘ His- 
torical Criticism’,  155 — The  Reportorial  Element 
in  the  Gospels,  156 — Trustworthiness  of  the  Evan- 
gelical Report,  157 — Faith  the  Foe  of  Fact,  158 — 
Primary  Canon  of  Criticism,  159 — Futility  of  This 
Canon,  162 — Can  We  Save  Any  Jesus  at  all? 
163 — Jesus  Certainly  Claimed  to  be  Messiah  and 
‘ Son  of  Man  ’,  166 — Jesus  Certainly  Claimed  to 
be  Superangelic,  168 — And  God,  169 — The 

Synoptic  Jesus  the  Real  Jesus,  171. 

The  Designations  of  our  Lord  in  John  and 
THEIR  Significance  .... 

Same  Christology  in  Synoptics  and  John,  174 — 
Differences  in  Method,  175 — The  Prologue  of 
John,  177 — Jesus’  Narrative  Name  in  John,  179 — 
Jesus’  Popular  Designations,  180 — Formulas  of 
Address,  180 — ‘ Lord  ’,  181 — Jesus  the  ‘ Christ 
182 — Jesus’  Own  Use  of  ‘ Jesus  Christ  ’,  184 — 
Jesus’  Relation  to  God,  186 — King  ’,  189 — 

Accumulation  of  Titles,  189 — ^Jesus’  Mission, 
190 — The  ‘ Lamb  of  God  ’,  192 — Figurative  Des- 
ignations, 193 — ‘ Son  of  Man  ’,  194 — ‘ Son  of 
God  ’,  195 — ‘ Son  ’,  196 — Eternal  Sonship,  198 — 
‘ God  ’,  199 — ‘ God  ’,  no  New  Title,  200. 

The  Designations  of  our  Lord  in  Acts  and 
THEIR  Significance  .... 

Value  of  Acts’  Testimony,  202 — ‘ Jesus  ’ in  Acts, 
203 — ‘ Jesus  of  Nazareth  ’,  204 — ‘ Jesus  Christ  ’, 

205 —  ‘ Christ  Jesus  ’,  205 — ‘ The  Lord  Jesus  ’, 

206 —  ‘ Lord  207 — ‘ Lord  ’ as  Narrative  Name, 


Ix 

PAGE 

146 


174 


202 


X 


Contents 


PAGE 


209 — ‘ Son  of  Man  212 — ‘ Son  of  God  2 13 — 

Prevalence  of  ‘ Christ  214 — Accumulation  of 

Titles,  216 — ‘The  Name’,  218. 

The  Corroboration  of  the  Epistles  of 

Paul  ......  220 

Relative  Early  Date  of  Paul’s  Letters,  220 — ^The 
Value  of  their  Testimony,  221 — Constant  Use  of 
‘ Lord  ’,  222 — Ground  of  Jesus’  Lordship,  223 — 

‘ Lord  ’ a Proper  Name  of  Jesus,  226 — Jesus  Em- 
braced in  the  One  Godhead,  228 — ^Trinitarian 
Background,  229 — ‘ Lord  ’ the  Trinitarian  Name 
of  Jesus,  231 — Appearance  of  Subordination,  232 — 

Its  Impossibility  with  Paul,  234 — Implication  of 
Term  ‘ Lord  ’,  236 — Subordination  is  Humilia- 
tion, 237 — Designations  Compounded  with  ‘ Lord 
238 — Christ  ’ Paul’s  Favorite  Designation,  241 — 

‘ Christ  Jesus  ’,  242 — Jesus  the  ‘ Saviour  ’,  244 — 

‘ The  Great  God  ’,  245 — ‘ The  Beloved  ’,  245 — 

Jesus  the  ‘ Man  ’,  247 — But  not  Merely  Man, 

248 — The  Two  Sides  of  Christ’s  Being,  249 — ‘ Son 
of  God’,  251 — God  ‘the  Father’,  252 — Christ 
All  that  God  Is,  254 — Paul’s  Jesus  the  Primitive 
Jesus,  255 — Inaccessibility  to  Critical  Doubts, 

258 — No  Substantial  Development,  260. 

The  Witness  of  the  Catholic  Epistles  . 262 

Catholic  Epistles  Corroborative,  262 — James’  and 
Jude’s  Christology  High,  263 — Christ  ‘ the  Glory 
264 — Christ  ‘ the  Despot  ’,  266 — Christology  of  i 
Peter,  266 — 2 Peter  and  the  Deity  of  Our  Lord, 

268 — John’s  Epistles  and  ‘ the  Son  of  God  ’,  270 — 

Jesus  the  ‘ True  God  ’,  272 — How  Our  Lord’s 
Companions  Thought  of  Him,  274. 

The  Witness  of  the  Epistle  to  the  He- 
brews ......  276 

Prevalence  of  ‘ Christ  ’,  276 — Recognition  of  Jesus’ 
Humanity,  277 — What  ‘ the  Son  ’ is,  278 — ^His 
Deity,  280 — Soteriological  Titles,  282 — Christ  our 
Priest,  284. 


Contents 


XI 


PAGE 

The  Witness  of  the  Apocalypse  r.  . 286 

A Summary  View  of  Early  Conceptions,  286 — 

Two  Classes  of  Designations,  287 — Simple  Des- 
ignations, 287 — Descriptive  Designations,  290 — 

‘ The  Lamb  ’,  290 — Accumulative  Designations, 

292 — The  Deity  of  Our  Lord,  294 — Trinitarian 
Background,  296. 

The  Issue  of  the  Investigation  . .298 

Fundamental  Conviction  of  the  Christian  Commu- 
nity, 298 — This  Conviction  Presupposes  our  Lord’s 
Teaching,  299 — And  Something  More  than  His 
Teaching,  300 — Including  Something  Very  Con- 
clusive, 301 — Not  Supposable  that  Jesus  Made 
False  Claims,  302 — The  Issue  the  Sufficient  Evi- 
dence of  the  Source,  303. 

Indexes  .......  305 

Index  of  the  Designations  of  Our  Lord,  307 — Index 
of  the  Passages  of  Scripture  Cited,  312 — Index  of 
Names  Cited,  330. 


This  man  so  cured  regards  the  curer,  then, 

As — God  forgive  me! — who  hut  God  Himself, 
Creator  and  sustainer  of  the  world. 

That  came  and  dwelt  on  it  awhile!  .... 

And  must  have  so  avouched  himself  in  fact, 

The  very  God!  think  Ahib;  dost  thou  think? 

— Robert  Browning. 


THE  DESIGNATIONS  OF  OUR  LORD 
IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 


They  . . . crucified  the  Lord  of  Glory. 

— I Corinthians  ii.  8. 

Who  is  this  King  of  Glory? 

The  LORD  of  hosts, 

He  is  the  King  of  Glory. 

— Psalm  xxiv.  lo. 


THE  DESIGNATIONS  OF  OUR  LORD 

The  proper  subject  of  the  New  Testament  is  Christ. 
Every  page  of  it,  or  perhaps  we  might  better  say 
Pervasive  every  line  of  it,  has  its  place  in  the  por- 
Witness  of  N.  T.  trait  which  is  drawn  of  Him  by  the 
to  Christ  whole.  In  forming  an  estimate  of  the 
conception  of  His  person  entertained  by  its  writers, 
and  by  those  represented  by  them,  we  cannot  neglect 
any  part  of  its  contents.  We  can  scarcely  avoid  dis- 
tinguishing in  it,  to  be  sure,  between  what  we  may 
call  the  primary  and  the  subsidiary  evidence  it  bears 
to  the  nature  of  His  personality,  or  at  least  the  more 
direct  and  the  more  incidental  evidence.  It  may  very 
well  be,  however,  that  what  we  call  the  subsidiary  or 
incidental  evidence  may  be  quite  as  convincing,  if  not 
quite  as  important,  as  the  primary  and  direct  evidence. 
The  late  Dr.  R.  W.  Dale  found  the  most  impressive 
proofs  that  the  Apostles  themselves  and  the  primitive 
Churches  believed  that  Jesus  was  one  with  God,  rather 
in  the  way  this  seems  everywhere  taken  for  granted, 
than  in  the  texts  in  which  it  is  definitely  asserted.  “ Such 
texts,”  he  remarks,  “ are  but  like  the  sparkling  crys- 
tals which  appear  on  the  sand  after  the  tide  has  re- 
treated; these  are  not  the  strongest — though  they  may 
be  the  most  apparent — proofs  that  the  sea  is  salt: 
the  salt  is  present  in  solution  in  every  bucket  of  sea- 
water. And  so,”  he  applies  his  parable,  “ the  truth 
of  our  Lord’s  divinity  is  present  in  solution  in  whole 


2 The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

pages  of  the  Epistles,  from  which  not  a single  text 
could  be  quoted  that  explicitly  declares  it.”^ 

We  need  offer  no  apology,  therefore,  for  inviting 
somewhat  extended  attention  to  one  of  the  subsidiary 
Scope  of  evidence  of  the  estimate  put 

of  this  upon  our  Lord’s  person  by  the  wTiters 
Discussion  New  Testament  and  by  our  Lord 

as  reported  by  them.  We  certainly  shall  not,  by  so 
doing,  obtain  anything  like  a complete  view  of  the 
New  Testament’s  evidence  for  the  dignity  of  His 
person.  But  it  may  very  well  be  that  we  shall  obtain 
a convincing  body  of  evidence  for  it.  What  we  pur- 
pose to  do  is  to  attend  with  some  closeness  to  the 
designations  which  the  New  Testament  writers  apply 
to  our  Lord  as  they  currently  speak  of  Him.  These 
designations  will  be  passed  rapidly  under  our  eye  with 
a twofold  end  in  view.  On  the  one  hand  we  shall 
hope,  generally,  to  acquire  a vivid  sense  of  the  atti- 
tude, intellectual  and  emotional,  sustained  by  the  sev- 
- eral  writers  of  the  New  Testament,  and  by  the  New 
Testament  as  a whole,  to  our  Lord’s  person.  On  the 
other,  we  shall  hope,  particularly,  to  reach  a clearer 
notion  of  the  loftiness  of  the  estimate  placed  upon  His 
person  by  these  writers,  and  by  those  whom  they  rep- 
resent. We  are  entering,  then,  in  part  upon  an  exposi- 
tion, in  part  upon  an  argument.  We  wish  to  learn, 
so  far  as  the  designations  applied  to  our  Lord  in  the 
New  Testament  are  fitted  to  reveal  that  to  us,  how 
the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  were  accustomed 
to  think  of  Jesus;  we  wish  to  show  that  they  thought 
of  Him  above  everything  else  as  a Divine  Person.  For 
the  former  purpose  we  desire  to  pass  in  review  the 
whole  body  of  designations  employed  in  the  New  Tes- 

1 Christian  Doctrine,  1895,  p.  87. 


Introductory  3 

tament  of  our  Lord;  for  the  latter  purpose,  in  pass- 
ing this  material  in  review,  we  desire  to  order  it  in 
such  a manner  as  to  bring  into  clear  relief  its  testimony 
to  the  profound  conviction  cherished  by  our  Lord’s 
first  followers  that  He  was  of  divine  origin  and  na- 
ture. In  prosecuting  our  exposition  we  shall  seek  to 
run  cursorily  through  the  entire  New  Testament;  in 
framing  our  argument  we  shall  lay  primary  stress  on 
the  Gospels,  or  rather  on  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  and 
adduce  the  remaining  books  chiefly  as  corroborative 
and  elucidative  testimony  to  what  we  shall  find  In 
the  evangelical  narratives.  Thus  we  hope  to  take  at 
once  a wide  or  even  a complete  view  of  the  whole  field, 
and  to  throw  into  prominence  the  unitary  presupposi- 
tion by  the  entire  New  Testament  of  the  deity  of  our 
Lord. 

We  turn,  then,  first  to  the  Gospels,  and  in  the  first 
Instance  to  the  Synoptic  Gospels.  We  observe  at  once 

Designations  ^ designa- 

of  Our  Lord  tions  they  apply  to  our  Lord  fall  into 
in  the  three  general  classes.  They  seem  to  be 
Synoptic  Gospels  purely  ilesign^tory,  generally  hon- 

■Orific,  or  specifically  Messianic.  Of  all  purely  designa- 
tory designations,  the  personal  name  is  the  most  natural 
and  direct.  We  can  feel  no  surprise,  therefore,  to  learn 
that  our  Lord  is  spoken  of  in  the  Gospels  most  com- 
monly by  the  simple  name  of  ‘ Jesus.’  Nor  shall  we 
feel  surprise  to  learn  that  the  simplest  honorific  titles 
are  represented  as  those  most  frequently  employed  in 
addressing  Him, — ‘ Ra_bbi,’  with  its  Greek  renderings, 
* Teacher  ’ and  ‘ Master,’  and  its  Greek  representative, 
‘ Lord.’  No  Messianic  title  again  is  more  often  met 
with  In  the  narrative  of  the  Gospels  than  the  simple 


4 


The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

‘ Christ,’  although  on  our  Lord’s  lips  ‘ the  Son  of 
Man’  is  constant.  The  general  effect  of  the  narrative 
on  the  reader,  who  passes  rapidly  through  it,  noting 
particularly  the  designations  employed  of  our  Lord, 
is  a strong  impression  that  (He  is  thought  of  by  the 
V writers,  and  is  represented  by  them  as  thought  of  by  His 
vcontemporary  followers  and  by  Himself,  as  a person 
' of  high  dignity  and  unquestionable  authority;  and  that 
this  dignity  and  authority  were  rooted,  both  in  their 
and  in  His  estimation,  in  His  Messianic  character.  If 
we  are  to  take  the  designations  employed  in  the  Gos- 
pel narratives  as  our  guide,  therefore,  we  should  say 
that  the  fundamental  general  fact  which  they  suggest 
is  that  Jesus  was  esteemed  by  His  first  followers  as 
the  promised  Messiah,  and  was  looked  upon  with 
reverence  and  accorded  supreme  authority  as  such. 
Whether  this  impression  is  fully  justified  by  the  evi- 
' dence  when  it  is  narrowly  scrutinized;  and  if  so  what 
the  complete  significance  of  the  fact  so  established  is; 
and  whether  more  than  appears  upon  the  surface  of 
it  is  really  contained  in  the  fact — these  are  matters 
which  must  be  left  to  a closer  examination  of  the  de- 
tails to  determine. 

In  undertaking  such  a closer  examination  of  the 
details,  it  will  conduce  not  only  to  clearness  of  treat- 
starting  ment,  but  also  to  surety  of  result,  to 
Point  of  the  take  up  the  several  Gospels  separately. 
Survey  perhaps  it  may  be  as  well  to  begin 

with  the  Gospel  of  Mark.  It  is  the  briefest  and  in 
some  respects  the  simplest  and  most  direct  narrative 
we  have  of  the  career  of  our  Lord.  It  may  be  sup- 
posed, therefore,  to  present  to  us  the  elements  of  our 
problem  in  their  least  complicated  shape. 


THE  DESIGNATIONS  OF  OUR  LORD  IN 

MARK 


In  Mark  what  we  may  call  the  narrative  designation 
of  our  Lord  is  uniformly  the  simple  ‘ Jesus.’^  Mark 

Narrative  no  Other  designation  In  his 

Designation  entire  narrative.*  On  the  other  hand, 
he  places  this  desigoation,  In  Its  sim- 
plicity, In  the  mouth  of  no  one  else.®  In  the  heading 
of  his  Gospel  he  sets,  It  Is  true,  that  “ solemn  designa- 
tion of  the  Messianic  personality,”  ‘ Jesus  Christ.’ 
This  Is  a designation  not  only  which  occurs  nowhere 
else  In  this  Gospel,^  but  which  occurs  elsewhere  In  the 
four  Gospels  only  rarely  and  only  In  similar  formal 
connections.  It  seems'  already,  here  at  least,  to  be 

occurs  seventy-three  times  in  Mark.  In  all  these  instances  it 
has  the  article,  except  the  first  (i»),  where  the  article  is  absent  in 
accordance  with  the  general  rule  that  names  of  persons  occur  first 
without  the  article,  and  after  that  take  it. 

2 In  “Jesus  Christ”  occurs,  but  this  is  not  in  the  narrative  but  in 
the  heading  of  the  book.  “Jesus  the  Nazarene,”  not  the  lan- 

guage of  Mark  but  of  the  people,  repeated  by  him.  “Lord  Jesus,” 
16^®,  “Lord,”  i620,  are  in  the  spurious  closing  paragraph. 

2 Unless  the  order  in  which  the  words  stand  in  « xhou  Son  of 
David,  Jesus,”  and  in  146^^  “That  Nazarene,  Jesus,”  be  thought  to 
constitute  an  exception.  The  designation,  ‘Jesus,’  occurs  on  the  lips 
of  others  in  such  combinations  as:  1^*,  “Jesus,  thou  Nazarene”;  5’’, 
“Jesus,  Son  of  the  Most  High  God  ”;  lo^^,  “Jesus,  the  Son  of  David  ”; 
and  also  again,  “Jesus,  the  Nazarene”;  1467,  “Jesus,  the  Nazarene”; 
16®,  “Jesus,  the  Nazarene.” 

* Cf.  Holtzmann,  Hand-Commentar , p.  37. 

5 


6 


Popular 

Designation 


The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

employed  as  a proper  name.®  But  in  the  narrative 
itself,  as  we  have  intimated,  Mark  uses  only  the  simple 
‘ Jesus,’  which  nevertheless  he  never  represents  as 
used  by  others  either  in  speaking  of  or  in  speaking  to 
Jesus. 

The  name  by  which  Jesus  was  popularly  known  to 
His  contemporaries,  according  to  Mark,  was  appar- 
ently the  fuller  descriptive  one  of  ‘ Jesus 
of  Nazareth’  (lo^^  i6"  14"’').®  On 
one  occasion  He  is  represented  as  ad- 
dressed by  this  full  name  and  on  two  others 

by  the  name  ‘ Jesus,’  enlarged  by  a Messianic  title 
(‘Jesus,  Son  of  the  Most  High  God’  5”^,  ‘Jesus,  Son 
of  David’  10^^).  The  inference  would  seem  to  be 
that  ‘ Jesus  ’ was  too  common  a name’  to  be  sufficiently 
designatory  until  our  Lord’s  person  had  loomed  so 
large,  at  least  in  the  circles  to  which  the  Gospels  were 
addressed,  as  to  put  all  other  Jesuses  out  of  mind  when 
this  name  was  mentioned.  The  employment  of  the 
simple  ‘ Jesus  ’ as  the  narrative  name  in  this  Gospel 
is,  therefore,  an  outgrowth  of,  and  a testimony  to, 
the  supreme  position  He  occupied  in  the  minds  of 
Christians. 

The  formula  by  which  Jesus  is  represented  by  Mark 
as  ordinarily  addressed  is  apparently  the  simple  Jipn- 
orific  ..title,  ‘ Rabbi,’  by  which  in  that 
age  (Mt  23’)  every  professed  teacher 
was  courteously  greeted.®  The  actual 

^ So,  e.g.,  Meyer,  Holtzmann,  Wellhausen. 

® On  the  form  NaXaprjv6<i  see  Swete,  on  Mark 

See  Delitzsch,  Der  Jesusname  in  “ Zeitschr.  f.  d.  luth.  Theol.,”  1876, 
zo^seq.,  or  Talmud.  Stud.,  xv. ; and  cf.  Keim,  Gescliichte  Jesu,  i,  384 
seq. 

* Cf.  Westcott,  on  John  32. 


Formula  of 
Address 


The  Designations  in  Mark  7 

Aramaic  form  ‘ Rabbi  ’ occurs,  however,  but  seldom 
in  his  narrative,  and  only  on  the  lips  of  Jesus’  disciples 
(9^  ii^^;  14^^,  Judas  In  betraying  Him)  ; although  the 
parallel  form  ‘ RabbonI  ’ occurs  once  on  the  lips  of 
a petitioner  for  healing  (10^^).  In  Its  place  stands 
customarily  Its  simplest  and  most  usual  Greek  ren- 
dering, ‘Teacher’  {dc^daxah)  The  general  synon- 
omy  of  the  forms  of  address,  ‘ Teacher,’  ‘ Master,’ 
‘Lord’  (dcddaxah,  iTzcardra,  x6p:s)  ^ as  all  alike 
Greek  representatives  of  ‘ Rabbi,’  is  fully  established 
by  a comparison  of  the  parallel  passages  in  the 
Synoptics,  as  well  as  by  such  defining  passages  as  Jno 

l38 

What  is  to  be  noted  here  is  that  in  his  re- 
port of  the  forms  of  address  employed  by  those  con- 
versing with  Jesus,  Mark  confines  himself  among 
Greek  formulas  to  ‘Teacher’  (diddaxah)  as  his 
standing  representation  of  ‘ Rabbi.’  The  use  of 
‘Lord’  (xupis)  in  7“®  is  not  strictly  an  exception  to 
this,  since  the  speaker  on  that  occasion  was  a heathen, 
and  ‘ Lord  ’ {xupce')  may  be  best  viewed  as  Indica- 
tive of  this  fact.  It  Is  the  common  Greek  honorific 
address,  equivalent  In  significance  to  the  Jewish 
‘ Rabbi  ’ or  ‘ Teacher.’^^ 

The  address  ‘Teacher’^**  is  used  by  Mark  broadly, 
and  Is  put  upon  the  lips  both  of  our  Lord’s  disciples 

9 See  esp.  Dalman,  The  Words  of  Jesus,  xiv.,  E.  T.,  pp.  zi'^seq. 

Cf.  Swete,  on  Mark  4^®;  Dalman,  327,  336. 

Cf.  Wellhausen,  in  loc.:  “ The  address  xopis  is  found  in  Mark 
only  in  this  passage,  in  the  mouth  of  a heathen  woman.”  Swete  goes 
astray  here  in  paraphrasing,  “ True,  Rabbi,” — “ Rabbi  ” is  out  of 
place. 

The  rendering  of  oidd<rxaho^  (after  the  Vulgate,  M agister) 
by  “Master”  is,  as  Westcott  remarks  (on  John  3^),  “apt  to  suggest 


8 The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

in  their  ordinary  colloquy  (4^®  9'^®  10^^  13^))  obviously 
as  their  customary  form  of  addressing 
Sigmficance^  Him;  and  of  others  who  approached 
H im  for  every  variety  of  reason  (5^“  9^”^ 
io17,2o  ^ There  does  not  necessarily  lie  in  this 

mode  of  address,  therefore,  anything  more  than  a 
general  polite  recognition  of  our  Lord’s  claim  to  be  a 
teacher  and  leader  of  men,  although  of  course  this 
recognition  may  rise  on  occasion  above  mere  courtesy 
and  become  the  expression  of  real  reverence  and  de- 
pendence and  a recognition  of  His  authority  and  sov- 
ereignty. When  something  like  this  was  Insincerely 
or  frivolously  expressed,  our  Lord  was  offended  by  It, 
as  in  the  case  of  the  rich  young  ruler  who  addressed 
Him  flatteringly  as  ‘Good  Teacher’  (10^’^).^^  But 
when  the  expression  was  sincere  It  was  received  by 
Jesus  In  good  part  and  the  recognition  of  His  authority 
involved  In  It  welcomed  and  responded  to,  even  when 
the  authority  suggested  far  exceeded  that  of  an  ordi- 
nary Rabbi  and  involved  at  least  Messianic  claims 
(io35  ^38  488^^  accept  this  designa- 

tion; He  even  adopts  It,  instructing  His  disciples  to 
speak  of  Him  to  others  as  ‘the  Teacher’  (14^^), — 
and  there  Is  Involved  perhaps  In  this  adoption  of  the 
title  all  that  Is  expressed  in  the  declarations  of  Mt 
23^'^^.  Although  not  necessarily  recognized  as  all  that 
He  was  by  every  one  who  approached  Him  saying 
‘ Teacher,’  yet  under  this  designation  He  certainly  is 

false  associations.”  Yet  the  implication  of  authority  is  present  in  it; 
and  that  might  be  missed  in  rendering  it  ‘Teacher’;  cf.  Schoettgen, 
Hor.  Hebr.  on  Mt  lo^®,  Jno  15^%  Gal 

Dalman,  p.  337:  “This  address  was  at  variance  with  actual  usage, 
and  moreover  in  the  mouth  of  the  speaker,  it  was  mere  insolent  flat- 
tery.” Cf.  Swete  in  loc.:  but  see  also  Alexander  and  Weiss-Meyer. 


9 


The  Designations  in  Mark 

recognized  as  claiming  and  certainly  does  claim  an 
authority  above  that  of  those  who  shared  the  title  of 
‘Teacher’  with  Him  (1^2.27  etc.). 

Similarly  we  are  not  quite  at  the  end  of  the  matter 
when  we  say  that  the  heathen  woman  in  addressing 
Him  as  ‘Lord’  (7-^)  only  makes  use 
^igmfica^ce  common  Greek  honorific  address. 

When  one  comes  to  a religious  teacher 
petitioning  so  great  a benefit,  the  honorific  title  which 
is  employed  is  apt  to  be  charged  with  a far  richer 
meaning  than  mere  courtesy  or  respect.  And  Jesus 
received  it  in  this  case  at  its  full  value;  in  a sense 
bearing  some  relation  to  His  own  appellative  use  of 
the  same  term,  ‘ Lord  ’ ( x6pco(; ) , when  He  declared 
Himself  ‘ Lord  of  the  Sabbath  ’ and  ‘ David’s  Lord  ’ 
as  well  as  his  ‘ Son  ’ (2^®  . It  is  in  this  ^.pella- 

tive^use  of  the  term  ‘ Lord  ’ by  Jesus  indeed  that  we  may 
discover  the  deepest  significance  of  the  application  of 
that  title  to  Him  (T  2^^  iT  12^®’^^  [12®  13^^]  )• 
is  no  doubt  sometimes  very  difficult  to  determine 
whether  in  a given  instance  it  refers  to  God  or  to  Jesus^*, 
a fact  which  has  its  significance.  But  the  certain  cases 
will  themselves  carry  us  very  far.  When,  for  example, 
Jesus  is  quoted  as  declaring  that  “ the  Son  of  Man  is 
Lord  even  of  the  Sabbath  ” (or,  perhaps,  “ of  the  Sab- 
bath, too”),  the  implication  is  that  He  is  Lord  of. 
much  more  than  the  Sabbath,  and  that  this  His  Lord- 
ship  is  an  appanage  of  His  Messianic  dignity.^®  And 

i^This  matter  is  carefully  investigated  by  Sven  Herner,  Die  An- 
nuendung  des  JVortes  xoptog  im  N.  T.,  1903,  pp.  7-9,  with  the  result 
that  he  assigns  2^8  728  n3  1288.37^  and  also  possibly  but  not  prob- 
ably 5I8,  to  Jesus. 

So  Weiss-Meyer : “The  conclusion  rests  ...  on  the  vocation 
of  the  Son  of  Man,  as  bringing  the  highest  blessing  to  man,  to  control 


10 


The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

when  He  is  represented  as  arguing  with  the  scribes 
over  the  significance  of  the  title  ‘ Son  of  David  ’ 
( 1 236,37)^  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  He  had  Himself 
as  the  Messiah  in  mind;  and,  whatever  else  His  words 
suggest,  they  certainly  Intimate  that  He  held  Himself 
as  the  Messiah  to  be  greater  than  David  as  truly  as 
^ He  was  greater  than  Solomon  (Mt  12^^)  ; that,  in 
a word,  David  (as  that  prophetic  monarch  himself 
recognized)  was  no  more  His  father  by  virtue  of  His 
descent  from  him,  than  he  was  His  servant  by  virtue 
of  his  essential  relation  to  HImd®  He  was  at  the  very 
least,  and  was  predicted  by  David  himself  as,  David’s 
sovereign. 

Such  being  the  conception  of  His  lordship  which 
was  In  His  mind,  we  must  assume  It  was  this  lofty 
dignity  which  He  claimed  for  Himself  when  He 
instructed  His  disciples,  whom  He  sent  to  bring  Him 
the  ass’s  colt  which  was  to  bear  Him  into  Jerusalem, 
to  tell  those  who  might  dispute  their  right  to  It,  that 
“the  Lord  hath  need  of  him”  and  this  is 

borne  out  by  the  strongly  Messianic  character  of  the 
whole  transaction  (verses  9,  10,  cf.  Mt  2i^’^  Jno 
1214,15)  17  ^j2d  surely  some  such  Implications  attend 


everything  that  has  been  arranged  for  man’s  blessedness,  and  there- 
fore also  the  Sabbath.”  Wellhausen  perceives  that  the  passage  as  it 
stands  imports  that  such  authority  can  be  exercised  only  by  the  Mes- 
siah. Cf.  Holtzmann. 

Cf.  Alexander,  in  loc.:  “The  person  thus  described,  as  the  supe- 
rior  and  sovereign  of  David  and  his  house  and  of  all  Israel,  could  not 
^ possibly  be  David  himself,  nor  any  of  his  sons  and  successors  except 
one  who  by  virtue  of  his  twofold  nature  was  at  once  his  sovereign 
and  his  son  . . also  Meyer,  in  loc.,  whom,  however,  Weiss  seeks 

to  correct  (cf.  Holtzmann,  Hand-Commentar,  249,  and  N,  T,  The- 
ologie,  I.  243). 

11' Wellhausen  remarks  in  loc.:  **  6 xupto?  is  purposely  meant  to 
sound  mvsterious ! Tesus  does  not  elsewhere  so  desie^nate  Himself,  nor 


The  Designations  In  Mark  ii 

also  the  semi-parabolIc  designation  of  Himself  as  the 
‘ Lord  of  the  House  ’ whose  coming  Is  to  be  watched 
for  (13'"^^).  And  at  least  as  much  as  this  Is  Involved 
when  the  evangelist  Identifies  Him  with  ‘ the  Lord  ’ 
wLose  way  was  to  be  made  ready  for  Him  by  the 
ministry  of  John  the  Baptist  In  fulfillment  of  the 
prophetic  declarations  of  Isaiah  and  Malachl  (i^); 
for  the^lteratlons  In  the  language  of  tKe~3Sa rations 
introduced  by  the  evangelist  make  clear  his  purpose  to 
apply  these  phrases  directly  to  Jesusd® 

It  is  not  necessary  to  presuppose  that  ‘ Rabbi  ’ un- 
derlies this  appellative  use  of  ‘ Lord  ’ (xopcot;).  In 
Mark  12^^  (and  probably  also  i^)  the  underlying  term 
is  Adhojil,  and  elsewhere  it  Is  doubtless  Mar  an,  or 
Marana  (or  Mara^a)P  In  other  words  the  Implica- 
tions of  the  term  in  this  application  of  it  are  those  of 
supremacy  and  sovereignty.  Whence  it  emerges  that 
Jesus  is  represented  as  claiming  for  Himself  (2^® 

1335  recognized  within  His  own 

circle  as  possessing  (ii^),  supreme  sovereignty, — a 
sovereignty  superior  to  that  of  the  typical  king  himself 

is  He  so  named  by  His  disciples  or  by  the  narrator.”  But  this  Is  surely 
hypercritical  in  the  presence  of  2^8  and  12^®’^^. 

Cf.  Holtzmann,  Hand-Commentar,  p.  55:  “Instead  of  auroDat  the 
end  there  stands  rdh  dsoo  ijiitov  in  the  Lxx.  The  change  shows  that 
the  evangelist,  by  the  xupto?  of  the  first  member,  wished  not  God  but 
the  Messiah  to  be  understood.”  See  also  Sven  Herner,  Die  Arisen- 
dung  des  JVortes  xonto<;  im  N.  T.,  p.  7:  “Nor  can  there  be  any  doubt 
that  the  citation,  already  known  from  Mt.  3® — ‘ Prepare  ye  the  way 
of  the  Lord  ’ — refers  to  Christ.”  Mark  has,  he  tells  us,  quoted,  imme- 
diately before,  the  words  found  also  in  Mt  with  alterations  from 
the  O.  T.  text  such  as  show  they  are  intended  by  him  to  refer  to 
Christ:  and  the  connection  necessarily  demands  that  these  now  before 
us  should  also  be  referred  to  Christ  (cf.,  p.  4). 

Cf.  Dalman,  /F ords,  328,  and  cf.  326.  It  must  not  be  supposed, 
however,  that  ‘Rabbi’  might  not  be  charged  with  a high  significance 
Xcf.  Dalman,  p.  334). 


12 


The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

( 1 , extending  over  the  divinely  ordained  reli- 
gious enactments  of  the  chosen  people  (7^^  cf. 
and  entitling  Him  to  dispose  of  the  possessions  (ii^) 
and  the  very  destinies  of  men  (13^^).  There  is  here 
asserted  not  only  Messianic  dignity  and  authority,  but 
dignity  and  authority  which  transcend  those  ordinarily 
attributed  even  to  the  Messiah  (12^®’^'^),  and  are  com- 
parable only  to  those  of  God  Himself  (i^). 

The  transition  from  such  a designation  of  Jesus  as 
‘ Lord  ’ to  the  designation  of  Him  as  ‘ Messiah,’  Is 
only  a passage  from  the  general  to  the 
Messianic  particular.  What  is  noteworthy  Is, 
therefore,  not  that  specifically  Mes- 
sianic titles  are  freely  assigned  to  Jesus  In  the  narrative, 
but  that  no  other  titles  than  Messianic  ones  seem  to 
be  employed  of  Him.  There  Is  indication  Indeed  that 
our  Lord  was  recognized  as  a prophet  (6^^  8“®)  ; In 
point  of  fact,  that  He  recognized  Himself  as  a prophet 
(6^).  It  Is  clear  indeed  that  He  was  widely  spoken 
of  as  a prophet  and  that  He  Himself  accepted  the 
designation  as  appropriate.^®  But  this  Is  little  empha- 
sized In  this  Gospel,  and  would  form  no  exception  to 
the  rule  that  no  designations  are  suggested  for  Jesus 
except  Messianic  titles.  Neither  can  we  consider  the 
designations  ‘Bridegroom’  and  ‘Shepherd’ 

(14^^),  which  Jesus  seems  to  have  applied  Incidentally 
to  Himself,  exceptions.  In  the  former  of  these  Jesus, 
discoursing  of  John  the  Baptist  (2^^)  doubtless  with 
Intentional  reference  to  a saying  of  his  which  is  vt- 

20  See  Swete’s  note  on  6* : “ The  Lord  here  assumes  the  role  of  the 
Prophet,  which  was  generally  conceded  to  Him  (6^®  8^8,  Mt 
Lk  24!^,  Jno  4^9  6^^  7^®  9^'^,  Acts  3^2  737).”  And  compare  Hastings’ 
Dictionary  of  Christ  and  the  Gospels,  i,  art.  “ Foresight,”  where  the 
matter  is  examined. 


The  Designations  in  Mark  13 

corded  for  us  only  in  John  (3^®),  identified  Himself 
on  the  one  hand  with  the  ' Bridegroom  ’ of  Old  Testa- 
ment prophecy  (cf.  Hos  2^^),  and  set  Himself  forth 
on  the  other  as  the  HeacL-of-  the  people  of  God  now  to 
be  gathered  into  the  promised  kingdom:  In  other 
words,  the  designation  Is_,M£SsianIc  to  the  cgre.^^  And 
certainly  not  less  Is  to  be  said  of  His  Identification  of 
Himself  with  the  mysterious  ' Shepherd ' of  Zech  13^ 
who  Is  the  fellow  of  the  Lord  of  Hosts  (14^^  II  Mt 
26^L*  and  cf.  6^^  |I  Mt  9^®;  and  see  Mt  25^^  eschato- 
loglcally;  and  Jno  lo^).  By  the  side  of  these  It  may 
also  be  necessary  to  recognize  as  a Messianic  designa- 
tion, the  epithet  ‘ Beloved,’  which  Is  applied  to  Him 
In  the  divine  commendations  of  the  Son — “ Thou  art 
my  Son,  the  Beloved,  In  whom  I am  well  pleased,” 
“This  is  my  Son,  the  Beloved”  9'^).^^  But  apart 
from  these  more  unusual  designations  none  are  applied 
to  Jesus  In  the  whole  course  of  the  narrative  by  any 
of  the  characters  Introduced,  Including  Jesus  In  His 
own  person,  but  familiar  Messianic  titles.  These  occur 
In  considerable  variety,  and  Include  not  only  the  simple 
‘ Chnst  ’ with  Its  equivalents,  ‘ the  King  of  Israel  ’ or 
‘ of  the  Jews,’  and  ‘ the  Son  of  David,’  but  also  the 

21  Cf.  Swete,  in  loc.:  “ So  the  Lord  identifies  Himself  with  the  Bride- 

groom of  O.  T.  prophecy  (Hos.  2-^,  etc.),  i.e.  God  in  His  covenant 
relation  to  Israel,  a metaphor  in  the  N.  T.  applied  to  the  Christ  (Mt 
25^,  Jno  Eph  528  sg,  Apoc  19"^,  etc.).”  Christ  is  set  forth  Mes- 

sianically  under  the  name  of  the  Bridegroom  in  N.  T.  only  in  Mk 
219,19,20^  Mt  9I®,  Lk  5^^,  Jno  32^;  and  in  the  Parable  of  the  Ten  Vir- 
gins, Mt  The  thing  occurs  oftener. 

22  Cf.  J.  Armitage  Robinson,  in  Hastings’  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  ii, 
501  (art.  “Isaiah,  Ascension  of,”  cf.  Charles,  The  Ascension  of 
Isaiah,  I.  4),  and  St.  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  229-247  (Note  on 
“'The  Beloved’  as  a Messianic  title”).  Dr.  Robinson,  however,  does 
not  assert  that  the  title  occurs  in  Mark,  though  he  finds  it  in  the  par- 
allel passages  in  the  other  Synoptics. 


14 


The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

more  significant  ones  of  ‘the  Holy  One  of  God  ’ and 
‘ the  Son  of  God/ — varied  to  ‘ the  Son  of  the  Most 
High  God,’  and  ‘ the  Son  of  the  Blessed,’ — and  Jesus’ 
own  chosen  self-designation,  ‘ the  Son  of  Man.’ 

The  evangelist  himself  nowhere  in  the  course  of 
his  narrative  speaks  of  Jesus  by  one  of  these  titles.  As 
we  have  seen,  his  narrative  name  of  our  Lord  is  ex- 
clusively the  simple  ‘ Jesus.’  No  reader  will  doubt, 
however,  that  he  considered  all  of  them  applicable  to 
Jesus;  and  he  announces  his  book,  in  the  heading  he 
has  prefixed  to  it,  as  intended  to  recount  the  origins 
of  “ the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  ” — possibly  adding 
also  the  further  Messianic  designation  of  “ the  Son 
of  God.”  This  compound  name  ‘ Jesus  Christ  ’ 
occurs  extremely  rarely  in  the  Gospels, 
‘Jesus  Christ’  and  never  except  in  the  most  formal 
and  cerernonious  circums^nces.^®  It 
appears,  indeed,  to  be  reserved  as  an  august  name, 
weighted  with  the  implication  of  the  entire  content  of 
Jesus’  claims,  and  therefore  suitable  only  for  setting 
at  the  head  of  documents  designed  to  exhibit  His  life 
and  work,  or  at  the  opening  of  accounts  of  significant 
periods  or  acts  of  His  career.  It  is  very  fairly  described 
by  Holtzmann,  therefore,  as  “ the  solemn  designation 
of  the  Messianic  personality.”^^  Although  in  it  the 

It  appears  only  in  the  headings  of  Mt  (i^)  and  Mk  (i"^)  and  at 
the  starting  point  of  the  narrative  of  Mt  (i^®)  and  the  new  beginning 
made  at  Mt  i6-^:  and  similarly  in  John  only  at  the  first  mention  of 
Jesus  w'hich  may  be  accounted  the  beginning  of  his  narrative, 

and  at  the  opening  of  the  great  sacerdotal  prayer  (17^)-  It  begins  to 
be  frequent  in  Acts  {2^^  3«  410  gi^dsT]  lose  io4S  „i7  1526  1518 
20-^  28^^)  ; and  in  Paul  it  is  very  frequent.  The  contrary  combina- 
tion, ‘Christ  Jesus,’  does  not  occur  at  all  in  the  Gospels:  but  appears 
occasionally  in  Acts  (3-®  [17^  24-^)  and  in  Paul  very  often. 

Hand-Corn.,  p.  37. 


The  Designations  in  Mark  15 

term  ‘ Christ  ’ has  ceased  to  be  an  appellation  and  be- 
come a portion  of  a proper  name,^®  its  use  as  such  bears 
all  the  stronger  testimony  to  the  ascription  of  the  Mes- 
siahship  to  Jesus.  Other  Messiah  than  He  had  ceased 
to  be  contemplated  as  conceivable,  and  the  very  ap- 
pellation ‘ Messiah  ’ had  become  His  distinguishing 
name. 

Although  this  compound  name  occurs  nowhere  else 
In  Mark,  and  the  reverse  combination,  ‘ Christ  Jesus,’ 
which  is  also  in  use  in  Acts  and 

‘ The  Christ  ’ Paul,  never,  the  simple  ‘ Christ  ’ ap- 
pears in  his  narrative  with  sufficient  fre- 
quency to  evince  that  it  was  a favorite  designation  of 
the  Messiah  (8“^  12^^  13"^  14^^  15^-),  applied  as  such 
to  Jesus  (8“^  14^^  15^-)  in  order  to  mark  Him  out  as 
the  Messiah;  and  accepted  as  such  by  Jesus,  who  thus 
asserts  Himself  to  be  the  Messiah  (8^^  14^“? 

13“^).  Its  significance,  as  the  simplest  of  all  Messianic 
titles.  Is  well  brought  out  by  the  synonyms  with  which 
it  Is  coupled.  When  Peter  assigned  it  to  our  Lord  in 
his  great  confession  (8~^),  our  Lord  at  once  takes  it 
up  as  the  equivalent  of  His  own  favorite  self-designa- 
tion of  ‘ the  Son  of  Man.’^®  When  our  Lord  would  in- 
struct the  scribes  with  respect  to  the  real  dignity  of 
the  Messiah,  He  asks  them  how  they  can  speak  of  the 
Christ  as  ^ the  Son  of  David,’  when  David  himself 

25  Wellhausen,  on  Mk  i^:  “But  in  ‘Jesus  Christ,’  [Christ]  has 

already  become  a part  of  a personal  name  and  has  therefore  lost  the 
article, — like  Adam,  Gen  5I.”  Holtzmann,  as  cited:  “The  nomen  pro- 
pr’ium  ’Itj(7ou<s  J(pi<7To^  ...  in  which  the  personal  name  Jesus 
. . . appears  as  the  fore-name,  the  official  name  XpLGro<i  as  the  sec- 

ond personal  name.” 

26  Cf.  also  the  parallels,  Lk  920,  “the  Christ  of  God”;  Mt  16I6,  ‘‘the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God.” 


1 6 The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

calls  Him  his  ‘ Lord  ’ When  the  high-priest 

at  His  trial  adjured  Him  to  say  whether  He  was  ‘ the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  the  Blessed,’  in  His  assenting  reply 
He  calls  Himself  the  ‘ Son  of  Man  ’ ( 14^-’®^) . And  in 
like  manner  the  scoffing  Jews  mockingly  addressed  Him 
as  He  hung  on  the  cross  as  ‘ the  Christ,  the  King  of 
Israel’  (15^^).  In  all  these  instances  the  term  is  ob- 
viously used  as  an  appellation,  and  has  no  different 
content  from  the  general  one  common  to  all  the  desig- 
nations which  impute  Messiahship.  It  is  the  com- 
plete synonym  of  ‘the  King  of  Israel’  (15^“),  ‘the 
Son  of  David’  (12^^),  ‘the  Son  of  the  Blessed’ 
(14®^),  ‘the  Son  of  Man’  (8^^  14^^)-  In  a word  it  is 
the  general  title  of  the  Messianic  Sovereign,  whom 
Jesus  claims  to  be  in  His  acceptance  of  this  designation, 
and  whom  He  is  asserted  to  be  by  its  application  to 
Him  by  His  followers. 

In  the  remarkable  passage,  9^^  alone  does  ‘ Christ  ’ 
appear  without  the  article.  And  therefore  it  has  been 
frequently  supposed  to  be  employed 
there  not  as  an  appellation  but  as  a 
proper  name,  and  therefore  again  to  be 
out  of  place  on  Jesus’  lips  and  to  be  accordingly  an 
intrusion  into  the  text  from  the  later  point  of  view 
of  His  followers.^"^  There  seems  to  be  no  reason,  how- 
ever, why  ‘Christ’  ^^en  without  the  ar- 

ticle may  not  be  taken  appellatively^®  (cf.  Lk  23^)  ; 

27  Dalman,  Words,  305-6,  explains  the  words  “ that  ye  are  Christ’s  ” 
as  an  intrusion;  on  the  ground  that  they  are  an  unnecessary  explana- 
tion of  a [lou  which  is  not  genuine.  Even  Swete,  in  loc.,  following 
Hawkins,  Hor.  Syn.,  p.  122,  is  inclined  to  see  here  “ a later  writer’s 
hand,”  and  Keil,  like  Dalman,  affirms  boldly  that  “ ort  ^ptffroo  iffri 
is  an  explanatory  statement  adjoined  by  Mark  to  dvopart  fiou.” 

2®  It  is  so  understood  here  e.g.  by  Fritzsche  and  Meyer;  and  Delitzsch 
points  out  that  sometimes  ‘ Messiah  ’ is  used  among  the  Jews  them- 


The  Designations  in  Mark 


17 


and  in  that  case,  no  reason  why  our  Lord  may  not  have 
told  His  followers  that  no  one  who  should  do  them  a 
benefit  “ in  the  name  that  they  are  the  Christ’s,”  i.  e., 
on  the  ground  that  they  are  the  servants  of  the  Mes- 
siah, should  lose  his  appropriate  reward.  In  this  view 
our  Lord  would  no  doubt  be  once  again  claiming  for 
Himself  the  Messianic  dignity;  but  He  would  not  be 
doing  it  in  language  inappropriate  upon  His  lips,  espe- 
cially at  a period  in  His  ministry  subsequent  to  the 
great  confession  of  Peter  at  Caesarea  Philippi  (8^^^), 
after  which,  we  are  expressly  told  Jesus  began 

to  teach  both  formally  and  quite  openly  what  and 
who  He  was  and  what  was  to  befall  Him  in  the  prose- 
cution of  His  mission.  The  thought  thus  brought  out 
differs  in  nothing  from  that  of  Mt  10^^  and  the  mode 
of  expressing  the  thought  is  equally  appropriate  with 
that  recorded  there,  on  the  lips  of  One  who  knew  Him- 
self to  be  Teacher  and  Lord  only  because  He  was  the 
Christ.  At  the  same  time  it  must  not  be  too  easily 
assumed  that  our  Lord  could  not  speak  of  Himself  as 
‘ Christ  ’ taken  even  as  a proper,  or  quasi-proper,  name, 
although  we  need  not  dwell  upon  this  at  this  point.^® 
It  was  because  He  announced  Himself  as  the 
‘ Christ  ’ and  was  widely  understood  to  possess  claims 
upon  that  dignity  that,  when  He  was 
arraigned  before  Pilate,  it  was  precisely 
upon  His  pretensions  to  be  ‘ the  King 
of  the  Jews  ’ that  He  was  interrogated  ( i . On 
Jewish  lips  this  title  naturally  was  corrected  to  ‘ the 

selves  without  the  article — according  to  Dalman,  however,  only  in 
the  Babylonian  Talmud  {Words,  p.  292).  Dalman,  loc.  cit.,  says  that 
anarthrous  Xpiaror:  occurs  in  the  Synoptics  only  in  the  phrases  ‘ Jesus 
Christ’  (Mt  Mk  1^),  ‘Jesus  surnamed  Christ’  (Mt 

‘Lord  Christ’  (Lk  2II),  ‘King  Christ’  (Lk  232),  and  here. 

29  Cf.  below,  pp. 


Royal 

Titles 


1 8 The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

King  of  Israel’  (15^'),  which  again  is  identified  with 
* the  appellation  ‘ the  Christ  ’ (15^^).  ' In  this  form  also 
Jesus  was  far  from  repelling  the  Messianic  ascription, 
but  on  the  contrary  expressly  allows  it  (15^).  To  all 
appearance,  however,  neither  ‘ the  Christ,’  nor  ‘ the 
King  of  Israel,’  was  more  current  as  a Messianic  des- 
ignation than  the  kindred  form  ‘ the  Son  of  David  ’ 
(i2^^  cf.  though  this  title  appears  in  Mark’s 

narrative  only  once  as  actually  applied  to  Jesus 
(io47,48)^  The  blind  man  at  the  gates  of  Jericho, 
hearing  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  passing  by,  and 
wishing  to  ask  a favor  at  His  hands  as  the  expected 
King  of  Israel,  knew  no  better  name  by  which  to  ad- 
dress Him  than  ‘ Son  of  David.’  It  was  the  faith 
thus  expressed  which  Jesus  commended  in  him  when 
He  responded  to  his  appeal, — thus  accepting  this  Mes- 
sianic title  also  ( cf.  It  is  quite  unten- 

able, therefore,  to  suppose  that  Jesus  wished  to  repel 
this  designation®^  in  the  question  He  put  as  He  taught 
in  the  temple  (12®^),  “How  say  the  scribes  that  the 
^ Christ  is  the  son  of  David,”  when  “ David  himself  ” 
(and  speaking  “in  the  Holy  Spirit”)  “calls  Him 
rather  Lord?  ” He  does  not  deny  that  He  is  David’s 

Holtzmann,  N.  T.  Theologie,  I.  243,  speaks  of  It  as  “the  most  pop- 
ular and  comprehensive  of  all  the  Messianic  titles,”  and  supposes  that 
the  underlying  Jewish  feeling  of  Matthew  shows  Itself  in  the  impor- 
tant role  which  he  makes  this  folk-cry  play  in  his  Gospel  (Mt  9^7  12-^ 

1 2o30>31  21O.I5 

31  So  e.g.  Wellhausen  (as  before  him  Strauss,  Schenkel  and  others)  : 
“ Jesus  represents  it  as  merely  a notion  of  the  scribes  that  the  Messiah 
is  the  son  of  David,  and  refutes  it  by  a statement  of  David’s  own 
which  proves  the  contrary.  An  incitement  to  enter  upon  this  question 
He  had  only  in  case  it  concerned  Himself.  He  held  Himself  for  the 
Messiah,  though  He  was  not  the  son  of  David,”  etc.  Cf.  on  the  con- 
trary the  remarks  in  Dalman,  Words,  p.  286:  also  Meyer’s  good  note. 


The  Designations  in  Mark  19 

son;  He  asserts  that  He  is  David’s  Lord.  It  seems, 
therefore,  not  quite  exact  even  to  say  that  He  wishes 
to  suggest  that  His  sonship  derives  from  a higher 
source  than  David:  that  He  is,  in  a word,  the  Son  of 
God  rather  than  of  David.®^  But  it  seems  clear  that 
He  desires  to  intimate  that  as  Lord  of  David  He  was 
something  far  m.ore  than  was  conveyed  by  the  accus- 
tomed— and  so  far  acceptable^^ — title  of  ‘ Son  of 
David  ’ and  something  of  this  higher  dignity  than 
mere  kingship  belonging  to  Him  Is  doubtless  inherent  In 
this,  therefore,  higher  Messianic  title  of  ‘ Son  of  God.’ 
This  higher  title,  if  It  Is  not  applied  to  Jesus  by 
Mark  himself  in  the  heading  of  his  Gospel  (i^).  Is 
at  least  In  the  course  of  the  narrative 
repeatedly  represented  as  applied  to 
Him  by  others,  and  Is  expressly  ap- 
proved as  so  applied  not  only  by  the  evangelist  (3^^), 
but  by  our  Lord  Himself  (14®^).  The  form  of  the 
title  varies  from  the  simple  ‘Son  of  God’  ([i^]  3^^, 
cf.  15^'^^)  to  the  ‘Son  of  the  Blessed’  (14®^)  and  the 
‘Son  of  the  Most  High  God’  (5^).  It  Is,  In  the 
Instances  recited  by  Mark,  found  chiefly  on  the  lips  of 
the  unclean  spirits  whom  Jesus  cast  out  (3^^  5^)  ; 
though  It  Is  employed  also,  apparently  as  a culmi- 
nating Messianic  title,  by  the  high  priest  at  His  trial, 

32  See  Dalman,  Words,  286. 

33  Cf.  Meyer’s  good  note  E.  T.  Mark  and  Luke,  i.  194  note. 

34  Dalman,  arguing  that  what  Jesus  wished  to  suggest  was  that  He 
was  Son  of  God,  not  of  David,  goes  on  to  urge  that  this  implies  a 
supernatural  birth,  and  (though  not  the  doctrine  of  the  two  natures)  a 
nature  which  though  “ appearing  in  human  weakness,  is  yet  a perfect 
revelation  of  God,”  and  fits  Him  for  future  rulership  over  the  world. 
Swete  remarks:  “The  title  does  not  involve  divine  sovereignty;  yet 
it  was  a natural  inference  that  a descendant  who  was  David’s  Lord 
was  also  David’s  God.” 


20 


The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

seeking  to  obtain  from  Jesus  an  acknowledgment  of 
His  great  pretensions  (14®^),  and  was  frankly  accepted 
by  our  Lord  as  fairly  setting  these  pretensions  forth 
(14®^).  As  a Messianic  title  it  differs  from^hose 
which  have  been  heretofore  engaging  our  attention,  in 
emphasizing,  as  they  do  not,  the  supernatural  side  of 
the  office  and  functions  of  the  Messiah:  He  comes  as 
the  representative  of  God  to  do  God’s  will  in  the  world. 
From  this  point  of  view  another  Messianic  title  ap- 
plied to  Him  b_y  a demoniac — ‘ the  Holy  One  of  God  ’ 
(i24),35 — ranges  with  it:  and  the  employment  by 
the  unclean  spirits  of  this  class  of  titles  only  (cf.  3^^  and 
may  be  due  to  the  fact  that  they  were  voices 
from  the  spiritual  world  and  were  as  such  less 
concerned  than  the  people  of  the  land  with  national 
hopes  or  earthly  developments.^® 

35  Westcott  (on  Jno  6®^)  remarks:  “The  knowledge  of  the  demo- 
niacs reached  to  the  essential  nature  of  the  Lord  ” (comparing  Rev 
3“^,  I Jno  2-^;  and  Jno  and  6^'^).  The  expression,  however,  (which 
occurs  only  in  Mk  Lk  4^^,  Jno  6®^)  need  not  in  itself,  as  Hahn 
(Lk  4^4)  puts  it,  “refer  to  the  moral  purity  of  Jesus  (Keil)  ; but  may 
express  rather  His  Messianic  dignity,  designating  Him  as  God’s  con- 
secrated, dedicated  One  (cf.  Jno  Hahn  adds  that  though  the 

demon  knows  of  the  humble  human  origin  of  Jesus  {Na^aprjvi)  he 
nevertheless  knows  also  of  His  divine  appointment.  Holtzmann  (p. 
76)  accords  in  general  with  Hahn,  and  points  out  that  the  demon 
speaks  for  his  class  (“us”).  Wellhausen  supposes  this  title  to  have 
been  formed  by  transference  to  the  Messiah  of  epithets  at  first  appro- 
priated to  Israel : “ Israel  originally  is  both  the  Son  of  God  and  the 
Holy  One  of  the  Highest”  (on  Mk  It  seems,  however,  a little 

difficult  to  understand  how  the  demons  were  supposed  to  recognize  at 
sight  (“as  soon  as  ever  they  saw  him”)  an  official  appointment.  Does 
it  not  seem  that  there  must  have  been  supposed  to  be  something  about 
Jesus  which  betrayed  to  an  eye  which  saw  beneath  the  surface  His 
superhuman  nature — whether  this  were  thought  of  as  His  supreme  holi- 
ness or  as  His  unapproachable  majesty? 

From  his  own  point  of  view  Wellhausen  speaks  (on  i25.26)  of 
“the  popular  belief  that  the  spirits  have  for  the  supersensual  other 


21 


The  Designations  in  Mark 

By  the  side  of  the  passages  in  which  the  precise  title 
‘ Son  of  God  ’ is  employed,  there  stands  another  series 
in  which  Jesus  speaks  of  Himself,  or 
‘The  Son*  is  represented  as  spoken  of  by  God, 
simply  as  ‘the  Son’  (13^^,  cf.  12®; 

9*^),  used  obviously  in  a very  pregnant  sense  and 
these  naturally  suggest  their  correlatives  in  which  He 
speaks  of  God  as  His  ‘ Father  ’ in  the  same  pregnant 
manner  (8^^,  cf.  13^^  14^^)  • The  uniqueness  of  the 
relation  intended  to  be  intimated  by  this  mode  of 
speech  is  sharply  thrust  forward  in  the  parable  recorded 
in  Mark  12.  There  were  many  slaves  who  were  sent 

eyes  than  flesh  and  blood,”  and  that  these  eyes  were  sharpened  in  the 
present  case  by  their  danger.  This  remark  seems  to  imply  that  in  the 
popular  view  “ the  Holy  One  of  God  ” imported  something  more  than 
divine  appointment — something  of  superhuman  nature  or  character. 
The  sharpest  eyes  could  scarcely  discern  appointment. 

37  On  the  strength  of  the  difference  between  the  precise  phrase  ‘ the 
Son  of  God’  and  these  phrases  where  Jesus  is  called  God’s  ‘Son’  or 
speaks  of  Himself  as  ‘ Son,’  it  has  become  common  to  say  Jesus  does 
not  use  the  title  ‘Son  of  God.’  Thus  e.g.  Shailer  Mathews,  The 
Messianic  Hope  in  the  N.  T.,  1905,  pp.  106-7:  “Jesus  Himself  does 
not  use  the  expression,  although  others  use  it  with  reference  to  Him. 
It  is  of  course  true  that  Jesus  frequently  speaks  of  God  as  ‘Father’ 

and  of  Himself  as  ‘ the  Son,’  but  this  is  quite  another  matter  from 

speaking  of  Himself  as  6 uid?  too  6eou.  . . . That  Jesus  spoke  of 

God  as  His  Father  in  some  unique  sense  cannot  be  denied,  but  such 

sayings  as  imply  this  do  not  employ  either  6 olds'  too  Oeoo  or  olds 
Dr.  Mathews  in  a note  refers  to  Jno  lo^®  ii^,  but  hesitates  to 
speak  of  these  as  exceptions  because  of  the  possibility  that  John  may 
have  substituted  here  “ a term  expressive  of  his  own  estimate  of  Jesus 
for  the  word  which  Jesus  used  Himself.”  He  might  have  pointed 
also  not  only  to  the  general  implication  of  Jesus’  acceptance  of  the  title 
when  applied  to  Him  by  the  demons  and  others,  but  to  His  express 
acceptance  of  it  at  Mk  14®^,  and  we  may  add  at  Mt  i67®,  though  Dr. 
Mathews  would  not  allow  this  instance.  Nor  is  it  so  very  clear  that 
the  ‘ Son  of  God,’  ‘ God’s  Son,’  ‘ the  Son,’  are  not  closely  related  to  one 
another  as  Messianic  titles. 


22 


The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

one  after  the  other  to  the  rebellious  husbandmen;  but 
only  one  son — who  is  called  “ the  beloved  one,”  a term 
which  is  not  so  much  designatory  of  affection  as  of  that 
on  which  special  affection  is  grounded,  and  is  there- 
fore practically  equivalent  to  “ only  begotten,”  or 
“ unique.”^®  It  is  possible  that  it  is  by  this  epithet  that 
God  designates  this  His  Son  on  both  of  the  occa- 
sions when  He  spoke  from  heaven  in  order  to  point 
Him  out  and  mark  Him  as  His  own  9^) — “ This 

is  my  beloved  Son.”  The  meaning  is  that  the  Son 
stands  out  among  all  others  who  may  be  called  sons 
as  in  a unique  and  unapproached  sense  the  Son  of  God. 
Of  course  it  is  possible  to  represent  this  as  importing 
nothing  more  than  that  the  person  so  designated  is  the 
Messiah,  singled  out  to  be  the  vice-gerent  of  God  on 
earth;  and  it  is  noticeable  that  it  is  as  the  Messiah 
that  Jesus  calls  God  appropriatingly  ‘His  Father’ 
when  He  declares  that  the  Son  of  Man  is  to  come  in 
the  glory  of  Flis  Father  with  the  holy  angels  (8^®) , and 
certainly  it  was  in  lowly  subjection  to  the  will  of  God 
that  He  prayed  at  Gethsemane,  “ Abba,  Father,  re- 
move this  cup  from  me  ” (14^^).  But  this  explanation 
seems  scarcely  adequate;  in  any  case  there  is  intimated 
in  this  usage  a closeness  as  well  as  a uniqueness  of  rela- 
ys Cf.  Swete  on  Mk  and  also  Wellhausen  on  these  passages.  “ ‘0 
ofo?  fiou  6 dyanrjrdf:”  says  the  latter  on  1^%  “for  the  Semites  means, 
not  ‘ my  dear  Son,’  but  ‘ my  unique  Son.’  ” For  a careful  discussion 
of  all  the  involved  conceptions  see  J.  Armitage  Robinson,  St.  Paul’s 
Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  1903,  pp.  229-233,  on  ‘“The  Beloved’  as 
a Messianic  Title.”  Dr.  Robinson  seems  to  suppose  that  “ beloved 
Son  ” in  Mark — not  elsewhere — means  simply  “ dear  Son.”  But  this 
is  scarcely  conceivable.  In  point  of  fact,  in  12®  the  meaning  seems  to 
be,  “sole,  unique.  Son”;  while  1^1  9'^  either  bear  that  same  meaning 
or  else  must  be  taken,  like  their  parallels,  as  uniting  to  the  ascription 
of  Sonship  an  additional  Messianic  title — “ the  Beloved.” 


23 


The  Designations  in  Mark 

tlon  existing  between  Jesus  and  God,  which  raises  Jesus 
far  beyond  comparison  with  any  other  son  of  man. 
And  that  remarkable  passage,  I3^^  In  which  Jesus 
declares  His  Ignorance,  though  He  be  the  Son,  of  the 
day  of  His  advent,  exalts  Him  apparently  above  not 
nfien  only,  but  angels  as  well,  next  to  the  Father  Him- 
self, with  whom  rather  than  with  the  angels  He  seems 
to  be  classed.^® 

All  these  Messianic  designations  are  represented  as 
not  only  ascribed  to  Jesus  but  accepted  by  Him.  They 
Our  Lord’s  own  are  not,  however,  currently  employed  by 

Testimony  to  Him;  as  reported  In  this  narrative.  He 
His  Messiahship  Joes  Indeed  make  occasional  use  of 
them — ‘the  Christ’  (9^h  cf.  8^®  12^^  13^^),  the  ‘Son 
of  David’  (12^^),  the  ‘Son  [of  God]  ’ (I3^^  cf.  12^) 
— but  only  exceptionally.  The  Messianic  designation 
which  He  Is  represented  as  constantly  applying  to  Hlm- 

39  “Note,”  says  Meyer,  “the  climax — the  angels,  the  Son,  the  Father.” 
A.  J.  Mason  {Conditions  of  our  Lord’s  Life  on  Earth,  120),  on  the 
other  hand,  thinks  “there  is  no  express  triple  ascent,  from  men  to 
angels,  from  angels  to  the  Son  ” — but  the  oud'e — ohdi  is  in  a sort  par- 
enthetical : “ None  knoweth — no  not  the  angels  In  heaven,  nor  yet  the 
Son— except  the  Father.”  “ All  the  same,”  he  adds,  “ the  sentence  is  a 
climax,  and  a pointed  one.  Our  Lord  does  not  say  (what  would  have 
been  good  Greek)  oo8k  ol  ayysXoi  ours  6 wfop,  as  if  the  Son  were 
in  the  same  class  of  beings  with  the  angels  in  heaven,  only  the  highest 
of  them.  He  says  oudk — obdi]  as  if  to  say,  ‘You  might  suppose  that 
the  secret  was  only  a secret  from  those  on  earth;  but  it  is  kept  a secret 
even  from  those  in  heaven.  You  might  suppose  that  the  secret  was 
only  a secret  for  created  beings,  but  it  is  a secret  for  the  uncreated  Son 
Himself.  The  Father  alone  knows  it.’”  Cf.  Swete:  “No  one  . . . 

not  even  . . . nor  yet.”  Dalman,  Words,  p.  194,  arbitrarily  sup- 

poses that  the  closing  words,  “nor  the  Son  but  the  Father  only,”  may 
be  an  accretion,  while  Zeller  (Z.  fiir  oo.  Th.,  1865,  p.  308),  on  the 
ground  of  this  ascription  to  Christ  of  a superangelic  nature  wishes  to 
assign  Mark  to  the  second  century  (see  Meyer’s  reply,  Mk.  and  Lk., 
E.  T.,  I,  205  note).  From  all  which  it  is  at  least  clear  that  the  passage 
confessedly  assigns  a superhuman  nature  to  Jesus. 


24  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

self  is  also  one  peculiar  to  Himself — ‘ the  Son  of 
Man.’^°  That  this  designation  is  actually  employed 
as  a Messianic  title,  is  apparent  not  only  from  its  ob- 
vious origin  in  the  vision  of  Daniel  7^^,  to  which  ref- 
erence is  repeatedly  made  (8^®  13^®  14^“),*^  but  also 
from  the  easy  passage  which  is  made,  in  the  course  of 
the  conversations  reported,  from  one  of  the  other  des- 
ignations to  this,  whereby  they  are  evinced  as  its 
synonyms.  Thus  in  8^^  in  sequence  to  Peter’s  confes- 
sion of  Him  as  ‘ the  Christ,’  we  are  told  that  Jesus 
began  to  teach  that  “ the  Son  of  Man  must  suffer  many 
things.”  Similarly  in  13^®  our  Lord  notifies  us  that 
although  many  “ false  Christs  ” shall  arise  who  may 
deceive  men,  yet  when  certain  signs  occur,  “ then  shall 
they  see  the  Son  of  Man  coming.”  Again  when  ex- 
horted to  declare  whether  He  is  “ the  Christ,  the  Son 
of  the  Blessed”  (14®^),  He  responds  in  the  affirmative 
and  adds : “ And  ye  shall  see  the  Son  of  Man  sitting 
at  the  right  hand  of  power.”  Evidently  if  we  are  to 
ask,  ‘ Who  is  this  Son  of  Man,’  we  must  give  answer, 

40  210,28  g31,38  ^9,12,31  jo33,45  i^2Q  i^21, 41,62^ 

The  reference  to  Daniel  seems  indisputable.  But  it  is  in  some- 
what wide  circles  not  allowed.  Even  conservative  writers  are  occa- 
sionally found  seeking  another  explanation  of  the  phrase,  although  this 
involves  treating  the  passages  mentioned  as  unhistorical.  Exam- 
ples may  be  found  in  Volkmar  Fritzsche,  Das  Berufsbenuusstsein  Jesu, 
1905,  pp.  17  sq.;  Siegfried  Goebel,  Die  Reden  unseres  Herrn  nach  Jo- 
hannes, 1906,  (following  his  note  on  Jno  ; and  Zahn  in  his  Com- 
mentary on  Matthew.  (Zahn  is  directly  refuted  by  Fritz  Tillmann 
in  the  Biblische  Zeitschrift,  1907,  vol.  i.,  348  seg.).  Critics  like  Well- 
hausen  and  N.  Schmidt,  of  course,  assume  that  ‘ Son  of  Man  ’ is  merely 
Aramaic  for  “ Man,”  and  deny  all  reference  to  Daniel.  What  may  be 
made  of  the  term,  and  of  the  Danielic  passage  itself,  from  this  point  of 
view  may  be  conveniently  read  in  Dr.  Cheyne’s  Bible  Problems,  1904; 
or  with  a great  display  of  hypothetical  learning  in  Hugo  Gressmann’s 
Der  Ursprung  der  israelitisch-jiidischen  Eschatologie,  1905. 


The  Designations  in  Mark  25 

shortly,  ‘ The  Christ  of  God.’  And  it  lies  in  the  evi- 
dence not  only  that  this  was  the  underlying  conception 
of  our  Lord  as  reported  in  this  Gospel  but  also  that  it 
was — however  dimly — apprehended  by  those  He  ad- 
dressed. There  is  perhaps  no  single  passage  in  Mark 
so  clear  to  this  effect  as  John  12^^,  where  the  multitude 
are  represented  as  puzzled  by  our  Lord’s  teaching  that 
the  “ Son  of  Man  must  be  lifted  up,”  in  view  of  their 
conviction  that  “the  Christ  abideth  forever.”  “We 
have  heard  out  of  the  law,”  they  say,  “ that  the  Christ 
abideth  forever:  and  how  sayest  thou  that  the  Son 
of  Man  must  be  lifted  up  ? Who  is  this  Son  of  Man?  ” 
This  is  as  much  as  to  say  that  that  ‘ Son  of  Man  ’ who 
is  the  Messiah  is  known  to  them  and  is  known  to  them 
as  the  eternal  King:  but  no  other  ‘Son  of  Man’  is 
known  to  them — who  is  to  be  “ lifted  up  ” from  the 
earth  that  He  may  draw  all  men  unto  Him.  The  same 
implication  is  latent,  however,  in  the  instances  reported 
by  Mark,  the  conversations  recorded  in  which  would 
have  been  unintelligible  had  there  not  been  in  the  hear- 
ers’ minds  some  intelligence  of  the  phrase  ‘ Son  of 
Man  ’ as  a Messianic  title,  although  it  was  apparently 
not  a Messianic  title  either  in  such  current  use  that  it 
came  naturally  to  their  lips  or  so  unambiguous  as  to 
be  easily  comprehended  by  them  in  all  the  implications 
which  our  Lord  compressed  into  it. 

The  difficulty  created  by  our  Lord’s  use  of  this 
phrase  seems,  indeed,  as  represented  by  Mark,  not  so 
much  to  have  lain  in  apprehending 
that  it  involved  a claim  to  Mes- 
sianic dignity,  as  in  comprehending  the 
character  of  the  Messianic  conception  which  He  ex- 
pressed by  it.  The  constant  employment  of  this  des- 


2 6 The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

ignation  of  Himself  by  our  Lord^^  in  preference  to  the 
more  current  ones,  such  as,  say,  ‘ Son  of  David  ’ or 
‘ King  of  Israel,’  appears  to  mark  in  effect  an  attempt 
on  our  Lord’s  part,  in  claiming  for  Himself  the  Mes- 
sianic dignity,  at  the  same  time  to  fill  the  conception 
itself  with  a new  import.  The  nature  of  the  revolution 
which  He  would  work  in  the  Messianic  ideal  current 
among  the  people,  in  other  words,  is  signalized  by 
His  avoidance  of  the  current  designations  of  the  Mes- 
siah and  His  choice  for  His  constant  use  of  a more 
or  less  unwonted  one  which  would  direct  their  atten- 
tion to  a different  region  of  Old  Testament  prophecy. 
He  says,  in  effect.  In  the  conception  you  are  cherishing 
of  the  Messianic  king,  you  are  neglecting  whole  re- 
gions^ of^,  prophecy,  and  are  forming  most  mistaken 
expectations  regarding  Him : it  is  from  the  Son  of 
Man  of  Daniel  rather  than  from  the  Son  of  David 
of  the  Psalms  and  Samuel  that  you  should  take  your 
starting  point.  No  single  title,  of  course,  sums  up  the 
entirety  of  our  Lord’s  conception  of  the  .Messianic 
function:  there  are  elements  of  it  adumbrated  in  very 
different  sections  of  Old  Testament  prediction.  But 

42  Cf.  Dalman,  Words,  p.  259;  “As  for  the  evangelists  themselves 
they  take  the  view  that  Jesus  called  Himself  the  ‘ Son  of  Man  ’ at  all 
times  and  before  any  company.”  Nevertheless  Dalman  himself  sup- 
poses He  probably  did  not  actually  use  the  title  before  Peter’s  confes- 
sion (Mk  8^®)  ; and  Bousset  {Jesus,  194)  is  sure  that  it  was  only 
towards  the  close  of  His  life  as  death  loomed  before  Him  that  He 
applied  the  Danielic  prophecy  of  the  Son  of  Man  to  Himself,  and  that 
He  never  adopted  the  title  in  its  full  content,  including  the  ideas  of 
preexistence  and  of  His  own  judgeship  of  the  world — the  ascription  of 
these  to  Him  by  the  evangelists  being  only  an  instance  of  the  faith  of 
the  community  working  on  the  tradition  (“  it  is  inconceivable  that  Jesus 
should  have  arrogated  to  Himself  the  judgeship  of  the  world  in  place 
of  God,”  pp.  203-5). 


27 


The  Designations  in  Mark 

He  elected,  apparently,  to  point  to  the  picture  which 
Daniel  draws  of  the  establishment  of  the  Kingdom 
of  God  on  earth  as  furnishing  a starting  point  for  a 
revision  of  the  Messianic  ideal  current  among  those 
to  whom  His  preaching  was  in  the  first  instance  ad- 
dressed. 

It  may  be  difficult,  in  view  of  the  varied  elements 
which  entered  into  His  Messianic  conception,  to  infer 
with  confidence  from  the  substance  of  the  sayings  in 
which  Jesus  refers  to  Himself  as  the  ‘ Son  of  Man,’ 
precisely  the  Messianic  conception  He  understood  to 
be  covered  by  that  designation.^®  And  much  less  can 
we  suppose  that  His  whole  Messianic  idea  is  embedded 
in  these  sayings.  He  refers  to  Himself  by  this  designa- 
tion in  only  a portion  of  the  sayings  which  must  be 
utilized  in  an  attempt  to  determine  His  Messianic  con- 
ception; and  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  He 
always  uses  this  designation  when  giving  utterance  to 
conceptions  which  He  subsumed  under  it.  Neverthe- 
less, having  guarded  ourselves  against  rashness  of  in- 
ference and  undue  narrowness  of  view  by  reminding 
ourselves  of  these  obvious  facts,  we  must  certainly, 
in  an  attempt  to  discover  the  significance  of  the  des- 
ignation ‘ of  Man  ’ in  the  Gospel  of  Mark,  begin 
by  observing  the  actual  connections  in  which  Jesus  is 
represented  in  that  Gospel  as  employing  it,  with  a view 
to  discovering,  as  far  as  possible,  from  the  substance 
of  these  sayings  the  actual  implications  which  it  em- 
bodied for  Him,  and  through  Him  for  the  writer  of 
this  Gospel  who  reports  just  these  sayings  from  His 
lips. 

Cf.  the  opening  sentence  of  Dalman  in  his  discussion  of  this  sub- 
ject {Words,  256). 


28 


The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

From  these  sayings,  then,  we  learn  that  the  life  of 
the  ‘ Son  of  Man  ’ on  earth  is  essentially  a lowly  one : 
He  came  not  to  be  ministered  unto,  but 
‘SonT^M^’  minister  (lo^^).  Suffering  belongs 
therefore  to  the  very  essence  of  His 
mission  (8^^  10^^  14“^’^^)  and  has  accordingly 

been  pre-announced  for  Him  in  the  Scriptures  (9^^ 
14^^).  But  this  suffering  is  not  in  His  own  behalf, 
but  for  others,  the  form  of  His  ministry  to  whom  is 
“to  give  His  life  a ransom  for  many”  (10^®).  But 
just  because  His  death  is  a sufficing  ransom,  death 
cannot  be  all:  having  given  His  life  as  a ransom  for 
many  the  ‘ Son  of  Man  ’ shall  rise  again  (8^^  9^’^^  10^^). 
Nor  is  this  vindication  by  resurrection  all.  He  is 
to  “rise  again”  after  three  days  (8^^  9^^  10^^),  but 
is  to  “ come  ” again  “ in  clouds  with  great  glory  and 
power”  (13^®,  cf.  14®^)  at  some  more  remote,  undes- 
ignated time  (13^^),  to  establish  the  Kingdom  in  which 
He  shall  sit  at  the  right  hand  of  power  (14®^).  At 
this  His  coming  He  “ shall  send  forth  the  angels  and 
gather  together  His  elect  from  the  four  winds,  from 
the  uttermost  part  of  the  earth  to  the  uttermost  part 
of  heaven  ” (13“^)  ; and  shall  show  Himself  ashamed 
of  all  who  shall  have  been  ashamed  of  Him  and  of 
His  words  in  the  adulterous  generation  with  which  He 
dwelt  on  earth  (8^^).  It  is  clearly  the  judgment  scene 
that  is  here  brought  before  us,  and  the  eternal  destinies 
of  men  are  represented  as  lying  in  the  hands  of  the 
‘ Son  of  Man.’  “ His  elect,”  “ those  whom  He  has 
chosen,”  are  gathered  into  the  Kingdom;  His  enemies, 
those  who  have  rejected  Him,  are  left  without.  Ac- 
cordingly it  is  not  surprising  that  He  who  came  to 
give  His  life  a ransom  for  many  (10^^)  and  who  is 


The  Designations  in  Mark  29 

to  come  again  in  order  to  distribute  to  men  their  final 
destinies  should  have  authority  given  Him  even  while 
on  earth  to  order  the  religious  observances  by  which 
men  are  trained  in  the  life  which  looks  beyond  the 
limits  of  earth  (2“®)  and  even  to  forgive  sins  (2^^). 
Perhaps  in  the  light  of  8^®  13%  in  the  phrase  “ on 
earth  ” we  may  see  a contrast  not  so  much  with  the 
“power”  of  God  to  forgive  sins  “in  heaven”  (cf. 
verse  7),  as  with  the  authority  to  award  the  desti- 
nies of  all  flesh  (13^^  “His  elect”;  8^®  those  that 
are  ashamed  of  Him)  hereafter  to  be  exercised  in 
the  heavenly  kingdom  by  the  ‘ Son  of  Man  ’ Him- 
self. 

What  perhaps  most  strikes  us  in  this  series  of  ut- 
terances is  its  prevailing  soteriological,  or  perhaps  we 
should  say  soteriologico-eschatological, 
*S^n^oT\lan'  christological  bearing.  To 

Mark  the  ‘ Son  of  Man,’  as  reflected 
In  the  sayings  he  cites  from  the  lips  of  the  Lord,  Is  the 
divinely  sent  Redeemer,  come  to  minister  to  men  and 
to  give  His  life  a ransom  for  many,  who  as  Redeemer 
brings  His  chosen  ones  to  glory  and,  holding  the  des- 
tinies of  men  In  His  hands,  casts  out  those  who  have 
rejected  Him — even  while  yet  on  earth  preadumbrat- 
Ing  the  final  issue  by  exercising  His  authority  over 
religious  ordinances  and  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  Little 
is  said  directly  of  the  person  of  this  Redeemer.  It  is 
a human  figure,  ministering,  suffering,  dying, — though 
clothed  already  with  authority  in  the  midst  of  Its  hu- 
mility (or  should  we  not  rather  say.  Its  humilia- 
tion?)— which  moves  before  us  In  Its  earthly  career: 
it  Is  a superhuman  figure  which  is  to  return,  clothed 
in  glory — “ sitting  at  the  right  hand  of  power  ” and 


30  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

coming  with  the  clouds  of  heaven  (14^'),  or  “ coming 
In  clouds  with  great  power  and  glory”  (13“^) — i^^ 
the  glory  of  His  Father  with  the  holy  angels”  (8^^), 
those  holy  angels  who  are  sent  forth  by  Him  to  do 
His  bidding,  that  they  may  gather  to  Him  His  chosen 
ones  (13“^).  Although  there  are  intermingled  traits 
derived  from  other  lines  of  prophecy,  the  reference 
to  the  great  vision  of  Daniel  In  these  utterances 

Is  express  and  pervasive,  and  we  cannot  go  astray  In 
assuming  that  Jesus  Is  represented  as,  in  adopting  the 
title  of  ‘ Son  of  Man  ’ for  His  constant  designation  of 
Himself,  intending  to  Identify  Himself  with  that 
heavenly  figure  of  Daniel’s  vision,  who  Is  described  as 
“ like  to  a son  of  man  ” In  contrast  with  the  bestial 
figures  of  the  preceding  context,  and  as  having  com- 
mitted to  Him  by  God  a universal  and  eternal  do- 
minion. Primarily  His  purpose  seems  to  have  been 
to  represent  Himself  as  the  introducer  of  the  Kingdom 
of  God;  and  in  doing  so,  to  emphasize  on  the  one 
hand  the  humiliation  of  His  earthly  lot  as  the  founder 
of  the  kingdom  in  His  blood,  and  on  the  other  the 
glory  of  His  real  station  as  exhibited  in  His  consumma- 
tion of  the  kingdom  with  power.  So  conceived,  this 
designation  takes  its  place  at  the  head  of  all  the  Mes- 
sianic designations,  and  involves  a conception  of  the 
Messianic  function  and  personality  alike  which  re- 
moves it  as  far  as  possible  from  that  of  a purely 
earthly  monarchy,  administered  by  an  earth-born  king. 
Under  this  conception  the  Messianic  person  is  con- 
ceived as  a heavenly  being,  who  comes  to  earth  with 
a divinely  given  mission;  His  work  on  earth  is  con- 
ceived as  purely  spiritual  and  as  carried  out  in  a state 
of  humiliation;  while  His  glory  is  postponed  to  a fu- 


31 


The  Designations  in  Mark 

ture  manifestation  which  is  identified  with  the  judg- 
ment day  and  the  end  of  the  world.  In  the  figure  of 
the  ‘ Son  of  Man,’  in  a word,  we  have  the  spiritual 
and  supernatural  Messiah  by  way  of  eminence.^^ 

The  whole  subject  has  recently  been  excellently  reviewed  by  a 
Roman  Catholic  scholar,  F.  Tillmann,  Der  Menschensohn,  1907.  He 
sums  up  as  follows:  “The  result  of  our  investigation  Is  in  brief  this: 
The  designation  ‘the  Son  of  Man’  is  a title  of  the  Messiah  just  as 
truly  as  the  designation  ‘ Son  of  David,’  ‘ the  Anointed,’  and  the  like. 
Jesus  adopted  this  designation  because  it  corresponded  best  to  His 
nature  and  His  purposes,  and  gave  least  occasion  for  the  political, 
national  hopes  which  His  people  connected  with  the  person  of  the 
Messiah.  If  we  inquire  further  into  the  specific  content  of  this 
Messianic  designation,  the  key  is  supplied  by  the  reference  embodied  in 
it  to  the  prophecy  of  Daniel:  the  Son  of  Man  is  the  Divine-human 
inaugurator  of  the  Messianic  salvation  predicted  by  the  prophets.  He 
with  whom  the  reign  of  God  on  earth  takes  its  start”  (pp.  175-6). 


MARK’S  CONCEPTION  OF  OUR  LORD 


If,  now,  we  review  the  series  of  designations  applied 
to  our  Lord  in  the  Gospel  of  Mark,  as  a whole,  we 
shall,  we  think,  be  led  by  them  into  the  heart  of  Mark’s 
representation  of  Jesus. 

What  Mark  undertook  in  his  Gospel  was  obviously 
to  give  an  account  of  how  that  great  religious  move- 
A Divine  ment  originated  which  we  call  Chris- 

Intervention  tianity,  but  which  he  calls  “ the  Gospel 
in  Christ  q£  Jesus  Christ  ” — the  glad  tidings, 
that  is,  concerning  Jesus  Christ  which  were  being  pro- 
claimed throughout  the  world.  To  put  it  in  his  own 
words,  he  undertook  to  set  forth  “the  beginning  of 
the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  ” (i^).  The  account  which 
he  gives  of  the  beginning  of  this  great  religious  move- 
y ment,  by  means  of  his  ‘ Gospel,’  is  briefly  that  it  origi- 
^ nated  in  a divine  intervention;  and  that  this  divine 
intervention  was  manifested  in  the  ministry  of  the  di- 
vinely promised  and  divinely  sent  Messiah  who  was  no 
other  than  the  man  Jesus.  This  man  is  represented 
as  coming,  endowed  with  ample  authority  for  His  task; 
and  as  prosecuting  this  task  by  the  aid  of  supernatural 
powers  by  which  He  was  at  once  marked  out  as  God’s 
delegate  on  earth  and  enabled,  in  the  face  of  all  dif- 
ficulties and  oppositions,  to  accomplish  to  its  end  what 
He  had  set  His  hand  to  do. 

It  is  idle  to  speak  of  Mark  presenting  us  in  his 

32 


Mark’s  Conception  of  Our  Lord  33 

account  of  Jesus  with  the  picture  of  a purely  human 
Christ’s  Life  life.  It  belongs  to  the  very  essence  of 
Thoroughly  his  undertaking  to  portray  this  life  as 
Supernatural  supernatural;  and,  from  beginning  to 
end,  he  sets  it  forth  as  thoroughly  supernatural.  The 
Gospel  opens,  therefore,  by  introducing  Jesus  to  us 
as  the  divinely  given  Messiah,  in  whom  God  had  from 
the  ages  past  promised  to  visit  His  people;  heralded 
as  such  by  the  promised  messenger  making  ready  the 
way  of  the  Lord;  and  witnessed  by  this  messenger 
as  the  “ mightiest  ” of  men,  who  bore  in  His  hands 
the  real  potencies  of  a new  life  (i®);  and  by  God 
Himself  from  heaven  as  His  Son,  His  beloved,  in 
whom  He  was  well  pleased  Anointed  and 

tested  for  His  task,  Jesus  is  then  presented  as  entering 
upon  and  prosecuting  His  work  as  God’s  representa- 
tive, endowed  with  all  authority  and  endued  with  all 
miraculous  powers.  His  authority  was  manifested 
alike  in  His  teaching  (T^),  in  His  control  of  demonic 
personalities  (T”^),  in  the  forgiveness  of  sins  (2^^),  ^ 

in  His  sovereignty  over  the  religious  ordinances  of 
Israel  (2^®),  in  His  relations  to  nature  and  nature’s 
laws  (4^^),  in  His  dominion  over  death  itself  (5^^). 

As  each  of  these  typical  exercises  of  authority  is  sig- 
nalized in  turn  and  copiously  illustrated  by  instances, 
the  picture  of  a miraculous  life  becomes  ever  more 
striking,  and  indeed  stupendous.  Even  the  failure  of 
His  friends  to  comprehend  Him  and  the  malice  of 
His  enemies  in  assaulting  Him,  are  made  by  the  evan- 
gelist contributory  to  the  impression  of  an  utterly 
supernatural  life  which  he  wishes  to  make  on  his 
readers.  So  little  was  it  a normal  human  life  that 
Jesus  lived  that  His  uncomprehending  friends  were 


34 


The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 


X 


tempted  to  think  Him  beside  Himself,  and  His  ene- 
mies proclaimed  Him  obviously  suffering  from  “ pos- 
session ” Whatever  else  this  life  was,  it  cer- 

tainly was  not,  in  view  of  any  observer,  a “ natural  ” 
one.  The  “unnaturalness”  of  it  is  not  denied:  it  is 
only  pointed  out  that  this  “ unnaturalness  ” was  sys- 
tematic, and  that  it  was  systematically  in  the  interests 
of  holiness.  What  is  manifested  in  it,  therefore,  is 
neither  the  vagaries  of  lunacy  nor  the  wickedness  of 
demonism.  What  is  exhibited  is  the  binding  of  Satan 
and  the  destruction  of  satanic  powers  (cf.  i"‘  et  saepe) . 
To  ascribe  these  manifestations  to  Satan  is  therefore 
to  blaspheme  the  Spirit  of  God.  Nobody,  it  appears, 
dreamed  of  doubting  in  any  interest  the  abnormality 
of  this  career:  and  we  should  not  misrepresent  Mark 
if  we  said  that  his  whole  Gospel  is  devoted  to  making 
the  impression  that  Jesus’  life  and  manifestation  were 
supernatural  through  and  through. 

This  is,  of  course,  however,  not  quite  the  same  as 
saying  that  Mark  has  set  himself  to  portray  in  Jesus 
Jesus  the  life  of  a supernatural  person, 

the  Whether  the  supernatural  life  he  de- 

Messiah  picts  is  supernatural  because  it  is  the 
life  on  earth  of  a supernatural  person,  or  because  it  is  the 
life  of  a man  with  whom  God  dwelt  and  through  whom 
God  wrought,  may  yet  remain  a question.  Certainly 
very  much  in  Mark’s  narrative  would  fall  in  readily 
with  the  latter  hypothesis.  To  him  Jesus  is  primarily 
the  Messiah,  and  the  Messiah  is  primarily  the  agent 
of  God  in  bringing  in  the  new  order  of  things.  Un- 
doubtedly Mark’s  fundamental  thought  of  Jesus  is  that 
He  is  the  man  of  God’s  appointment,  with  whom 


'Markus  Conception  of  Our  Lord  35 

God  is.  Designating  Him  currently  merely  by  His 
personal  name  of  ‘ Jesus,’  and  representing  Him  as 
currently  spoken  of  by  His  contemporaries  merely  as 
‘Jesus  of  Nazareth’  and  addressed  by  the  simple  hon- 
orific titles  of  ‘ Rabbi,’  ‘ Teacher,’  ‘ Lord  ’ — His  funda- 
mental manifestation  is  to  him  plainly  that  of  a man 
among  men.  That  this  man  was  the  Messiah  need  not 
in  itself  import  more  than  that  He  was  the  subject  of 
divine  influences  beyond  all  other  men,  and  the  vehicle 
Df  divine  operations  surpassing  all  other  human  ex- 
perience. It  may  fairly  be  asked,  therefore,  what 
requires  us  to  go  beyond  the  divine  office  to  explain 
this  supernaturally  filled  life?  Will  not  the  assumption 
of  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus  fully  account  for  the 
abounding  supernaturalism  of  His  activity  as  por- 
trayed by  Mark?  Questions  like  these  are  in  point 
of  fact  constantly  raised  around  us  and  very  variously 
answered.  But  it  behooves  us  to  be  on  our  guard  re- 
specting them  that  we  be  not  led  into  a false  antithesis, 
IS  if  we  must  explain  Mark’s  presentation  of  the 
supernatural  life  of  Jesus  either  on  the  basis  of  His 
office  as  Messiah  or  on  the  basis  of  His  superhuman 
oersonality. 

There  is  no  necessary  contradiction  between  these 
:wo  hypotheses;  and  we  must  not  introduce  here 
a factitious  “ either — or.”  What  it  behooves  us  to  do 
is  simply  to  inquire  how  the  matter  lay  in  Mark’s  mind; 
what  the  real  significance  of  the  Messiahship  he  at- 
tributed to  Jesus,  and  represented  Jesus  as  claiming 
for  Himself,  is;  and  whether  he  posits  for  Jesus  and 
represents  Him  as  asserting  for  Himself  something 
more  than  a human  personality. 


36  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

We  cannot  have  failed  to  note  in  reviewing  the 
designations  applied  in  the  course  of  Mark’s  narrative 
Jesus*  Person  to  our  Lord,  a tendency  of  them  all 
Enhances  His  when  applied  to  Him  to  grow  in  rich- 
Designations  content.  The  term  ‘ Lord  ’ is 

merely  an  honorific  address,  equivalent  to  our  ‘ Sir  ’ : but 
when  applied  to  Jesus  it  seems  to  expand  in  significance 
until  it  ends  by  implying  supreme  authority.  The  term 
‘ Messiah  ’ is  a mere  term  of  office  and  might  be  ap- 
plied to  anyone  solemnly  set  apart  for  a service:  but 
when  applied  to  Jesus  it  takes  on  fuller  and  fuller 
significance  until  it  ends  by  assimilating  Him  to  the 
Divine  Being  Himself.  He  who  simply  reads  over 
Mark’s  narrative,  noting  the  designations  he  applies 
to  our  Lord,  accordingly,  will  not  be  able  to  doubt 
that  Mark  conceived  of  Jesus  not  merely  as  officially 
■ the  representative  of  God  but  as  Himself  a superhuman 
person,  or  that  Mark  means  to  present  Jesus  as  Him- 
X self  so  conceiving  of  His  nature  and  personality.  The 
evidence  of  this  is  very  copious,  but  also  often  rather 
subtle;  and,  in  endeavoring  to  collect  and  appreciate 
it,  we  might  as  well  commence  with  some  of  the  plain- 
est items,  although  this  method  involves  a somewhat 
unordered  presentation  of  it. 

Let  us  look,  then,  first  at  that  remarkable  passage 
(13^^)  in  which  Jesus  acknowledges  ignorance  of  the 
Jesus  a time  of  His  (second)  coming.^  Here, 
Superangelic  in  the  very  act  of  admitting  limitations 
Person  pjjg  knowledge,  in  themselves  aston- 

ishing, He  yet  asserts  for  Himself  not  merely  a super- 

1 On  account  of  this  profession  of  ignorance,  Prof.  Schmiedel  {Encyc. 
Biblica,  1881)  gives  this  passage  a place  among  those  nine  “absolutely 
credible  passages  ” which  he  calls  “ the  foundation  pillars  for  a truly 


Mark!s  Conception  of  Our  Lord  37 

human  but  even  a superangellc  rank  in  the  scale  of 
being. 

In  any  possible,^  interpretation  of  the  passage, 
He  separates  Himself  from  the  “ angels  in  heaven  ” 
(note  the  enhancing  definition  of  locality,  carrying  with 
it  the  sense  of  the  exaltation  of  these  angels  above 
all  that  is  earthly)  as  belonging  to  a different  class 
from  them,  and  that  a superior  class.  To  Jesus  as  He 
Is  reported,  and  presumably  to  Mark  reporting  Him, 
we  see,  Jesus  “ the  Son  ” stands  as  definitely  and  as 
incomparably  above  the  category  of  angels,  the  high- 
est of  God’s  creatures,  as  to  the  author  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews,  whose  argument  may  be  taken  as  a 
commentary  upon  this  passage  (Heb  2^).  Nor  is 
this  passage  singular  in  Mark  in  exalting  Jesus  in  dig- 
nity and  authority  above  the  angels.  Already  in  the 
account  of  the  temptation  at  the  opening  of  His  min- 
istry we  find  the  angels  signalized  as  ministering  to 
Him  (i^^),  and  elsewhere  they  appear  as  His  subor- 
dinates swelling  His  train  (8^®)  or  His  servants  obey- 
ing His  behests  (13^^  “He  shall  send  the  angels”). 
Clearly,  therefore,  to  Mark  Jesus  is  not  merely  a 
superhuman  but  a superangellc  personality:  and  the 
question  at  once  obtrudes  itself  whether  a superangellc 
person  is  not  by  that  very  fact  removed  from  the 
category  of  creatures. 

icientific  life  of  Jesus.”  If  so,  a “ truly  scientific  life  of  Jesus  ” must 
illow  that  He  asserted  for  Himself  a superangellc,  that  is,  a more 
han  creaturely  dignity  of  person.  Others,  just  for  this  reason,  would 
leny  the  words  to  Jesus  (e.g.  Martineau,  Seat  of  Authority  in  Religion, 
;9o;  N.  Schmidt,  The  Prophet  of  Nazareth,  147,  231  note),  and  even 
Kalman  is  not  superior  to  the  temptation  arbitrarily  to  apportion  them 
)artly  to  Jesus  and  partly  to  His  followers  {Words,  p.  194).  But  all 
his  is  purely  subjective  criticism. 


38  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

A similar  implication,  as  has  already  been  pointed 
out,  is  embedded  in  the  title  ‘ Son  of  Man,’  which 
Jesus  Mark  represents  as  our  Lord’s  stated 

of  Heavenly  self-designation.  The  appeal  involved 
Origin  Daniel  is  a definite  as- 

sertion for  the  Messiah  of  a heavenly  as  distinguished 
from  an  earthly  origin,  with  all  the  suggestions  of 
preexistence,  divine  exaltation  and  authority,  and  end- 
less sovereignty  necessarily  connected  with  a heavenly 
origin.  It  would  be  impossible  to  frame  a Messianic 
conception  on  the  basis  of  this  vision  of  Daniel  and  to 
suppose  the  Messiah  to  be  in  His  person  a mere  man 
deriving  His  origin  from  the  earth.^  This  is  sufficiently 
illustrated  indeed  by  the  history  of  the  Messianic  ideal 
among  the  Jews.  There  is  very  little  evidence  among 
the  Jews  before  or  contemporary  with  our  Lord,  of  re- 
sort to  Daniel  as  a basis  for  Messianic  hopes: 

^fbut  wherever  this  occurs  it  is  the  conception  of  a pre- 
existent, heavenly  monarch  who  is  to  judge  the  world 
in  righteousness  which  is  derived  from  this  passage.^ 
No  other  conception,  in  fact,  could  be  derived  from 
Daniel,  where  the  heavenly  origin  of  the  eternal  King 
is  thrown  into  the  sharpest  contrast  with  the  lower 

2 Cf.  Dalman,  Words,  242:  “The  destined  possessor  of  the  universal 

dominion  comes  not  from  the  earth,  far  less  from  the  sea,  but  from 
heaven.  He  is  a being  standing  in  a near  relation  to  God  . . .” 

3 The  Similitudes  of  Enoch  and  the  Second  Book  of  Esdras  (more 
commonly  called  4 Esdras).  Cf.  Dalman,  Words,  pp.  242  and  131: 
“ From  the  first  Christian  century  there  are  only  two  writings  known 
which  deal  with  Dan  7^^,  the  Similitudes  of  the  Book  of  Enoch,  and 
the  Second  Book  of  Esdras”  . . . “After  the  Similitudes  of  Enoch 
the  only  representatives  of  the  idea  [of  the  heavenly  preexistence  of 
the  Messiah]  independent  of  Enoch,  are  2 Esdras  in  the  first  Christian 
century  and  the  Appendix  to  Pesikta  Rabbati  in  the  seventh  or  eighth 
century.” 


39 


Markus  Conception  of  Our  Lord 

source  of  the  preceding  bestial  rulers.  Judaism  may 
not  have  known  how  to  reconcile  this  heavenly  origin 
of  the  Messiah  with  His  birth  as  a human  being,  and 
may  have,  therefore,  when  so  conceiving  the  Mes- 
siah, sacrificed  His  human  condition  entirely  to  His 
heavenly  nature  and  supposed  Him  to  appear  upon  the 
^arth  as  a developed  personality.^  That  our  Lord  does 
aot  feel  this  difficulty  or  share  this  notion  manifests, 
in  the  matter  of  His  adoption  of  the  title  ‘ Son  of 
Man  ’ as  His  favorite  Messianic  self-designation.  His 
independence  of  whatever  Jewish  tradition  may  be 
supposed  to  have  formed  itself.  But  His  adoption  of 
the  title  at  all,  with  its  obvious  reference  to  the  vision 
□f  Daniel,®  necessarily  carried  with  it  the  assertion  of 
heavenly  origination  and  nature. 

This  in  turn  carried  with  it,  we  may  add,  the  con- 
ception that  He  had  “ come  ” to  earth  upon  a mission, 
Jesus*  ^ conception  which  does  not  fail  to  find 

Earthly  Life  independent  expression  in  such  passages, 
a Mission  jss  jq45^  Pqj.^  assertions 

in  these  passages  that  He  “ came  forth  ” to  preach, 
that  He  “ came  ” not  to  save  the  righteous  but  sinners, 
that  He  “ came  ” not  to  be  ministered  unto  but  to 
minister  and  to  give  His  life  as  a ransom  for  many, 
refer  to  His  divine  mission  (cf.  also  lies  on 

their  face.  It  is  suggested  by  the  pregnancy  of  the 

4 Cf.  Dalman,  131:  “Judaism  has  never  known  anything  of  a pre- 
existence peculiar  to  the  Messiah,  antecedent  to  His  hirth  as  a human 
heingJ'  “ He  is  to  make  His  appearance  on  earth  as  a fully  developed 
personality.”  See  p.  301 : “ The  celestial  preexistence  of  Messiah,  as 
stated  in  the  Similitudes  of  Enoch  and  in  2 [4]  Esdr  13,  14,  excluding — 
50  at  least  it  seems — an  earthly  origin,  implies,  apart  from  the  incen- 
tive contributed  by  Dan  7^^,  his  miraculous  superhuman  appearance.” 
Cf.  p.  257  et  seq. 

® Cf.  Dalman,  pp.  257  et  seq. 


40 


The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

expressions  themselves,  and  the  connections  In  which 
they  are  employed;  and  It  Is  supported  by  the  even 
more  direct  language  of  some  of  the  parallels.®  In 
themselves  these  expressions  may  not  necessarily  In- 
volve the  Idea  of  preexistence  (cf.  9^^  and  Jno  of 
John  the  Baptist)  ; but  they  fall  readily  In  with  It, 
and  so  far  suggest  It  that  when  supported  by  other 
forms  of  statement  Implying  It,  they  cannot  well  be 
taken  In  any  other  sense.’ 

® Cf.  Swete,  on  Mk  “‘For  to  this  end  came  I forth’  (Mark), 
is  interpreted  for  us  by  Luke,  ‘ Because  to  this  end  was  I sent.’  ‘ Came 
I forth’  does  not  refer  to  His  departure  from  Capernaum  {v.  35),  but 
to  His  mission  from  the  Father  (Jno  8^^  j22op’.  ^nd  on  Mk  10^®: 
“ For  ^X6ov  in  reference  to  our  Lord’s  entrance  into  the  world,  cf. 

2^’^;  it  is  used  also  of  the  Baptist  (9I1  seq.,  j^q  jT)  regarded  as  a 
divine  messenger  ” — whence  we  observe  that  it  does  not  of  itself  imply 
preexistence.  Meyer,  on  notes  that  this  view  is  held  by  Euthym- 
ius  Zigabenus,  Maldonatus,  Grotius,  Bengel,  Lange  and  others, — 
conf.  Baumgarten-Crusius ; he  himself  does  not  hold  it.  Cf.  Meyer, 
on  Mt  “His  coming  as  such  is  always  brought  forward  with  great 
emphasis  by  Mark  and  Luke.”  Holtzmann  on  thinks  the  reference 
is  to  the  departure  from  Capernaum,  while  Luke’s  phrase  (4^^)  is  a 
transition  to  the  Johannine  form  of  expression  (e.g.  8^^)^ 

Cf.  G.  S.  Streatfeild,  The  Self -Interpretation  of  Jesus  Christ,  1906, 
pp.  81-83.  Mr.  Streatfeild  connects  these  sayings  with  those  in  which 
our  Lord  refers  to  His  return  in  glory.  “ Thus  to  describe  Himself  as 
coming  into  the  world,”  he  remarks,  “ suggests,  if  it  does  no  more,  a 
consciousness  of  personal  vocation,  a conviction,  if  not  a consciousness, 
of  preexistence.”  “ The  word  ‘ come,’  ” he  adds,  “ is  never,  so  far  as  the 
present  writer  recollects,  used  of  or  by  the  prophets  in  the  sense  in 
which  our  Lord  applies  it  to  Himself.  Apparent  exceptions  are  shown 
to  be  only  apparent  by  the  context.  On  the  other  hand,  the  term  is 
constantly  used  in  the  O.  T.  of  God  and  the  Messianic  theophany.” 
Perhaps  Mr.  Streatfeild  slightly  overstates  the  matter,  but  what  he  says 
is  essentially  true.  His  use  of  these  phrases  certainly  testifies  to  our 
Lord’s  deep  consciousness  of  being  intrusted  with  a great  mission  which 
He  had  come  into  the  world  to  fulfil — as  the  use  of  them  of  John  the 
Baptist  testifies  to  his  mission:  and  the  pregnancy  of  the  use  He  makes 
of  them,  and  the  connections  in  which  He  uses  them,  strongly  suggest  a 


41 


Markus  Conception  of  Our  Lord 

It  is,  however,  above  all  in  the  picture  which  Jesus 
:mself  draws  for  us  of  the  ‘ Son  of  Man  ’ that  we 
Jesus’  see  His  superhuman  nature  portrayed. 

Functions  For  the  figure  thus  brought  before  us 

Divine  jg  distinctly  a superhuman  one;  one 
lich  is  not  only  in  the  future  to  be  seen  sitting  at  the 
;ht  hand  of  power  and  coming  with  the  clouds  of 
aven  (14^^) — in  clouds  with  great  power  and  glory 
3“®),  even  in  the  glory  of  His  Father  with  the  holy 
gels  (8^^)  who  do  His  bidding  as  the  Judge  of  all 

1 earth,  gathering  His  elect  for  Him  (13^®)  while 

2 punishes  His  enemies  (8^®)  ; but  which  in  the  pres- 
t world  itself  exercises  functions  which  are  truly 
dne, — for  who  is  Lord  of  the  Sabbath  but  the  God 
10  instituted  it  in  commemoration  of  His  own  rest 

and  who  can  forgive  sins  but  God  only  cf. 
*se  7)  ? The  assignment  to  the  Son  of  Man 
the  function  of  Judge  of  the  world  and  the 
:ription  to  Him  of  the  right  to  forgive  sins 
in  each  case,  but  another  way  of  saying  that 
; is  a divine  person;  for  these  are  divine  acts.® 

t^iction  on  His  part  of  preexistence,  though  they  do  not  in  themselves 
jpportedly  avail  to  prove  it.  The  language  might  be  employed 
iistently  of  a divine  mission  without  preexistence;  but  it  seems  to 
;mployed  here  with  deeper  implications. 

On  the  forgiveness  of  sins  as  a divine  act,  cf.  Dalman,  Words,  262 
314,  315.  As  against  J.  Weiss,  Dalman  notes  that  it  is  a fact 
at  Judaism  never  from  O.  T.  times  to  the  present  day,  has  ventured 
lake  any  such  assertion  in  regard  to  the  Messiah  ” as  that  the  “ Lord 
i power  to  forgive  sins.”  Cf.  Briggs,  The  Messiah  of  the  Gospels, 
84.  On  the  judgment  of  the  world  as  a divine  act,  cf.  Bousset,  Jesus, 
205.  Dr.  Stanton,  Je<wish  and  Christian  Messiah,  291,  says:  “The 
ge  in  that  last  judgment  is  on  Jewish  ground  nowhere  the  Messiah. 

assignment  of  this  office  to  Him  is  the  most  significant  new  feature 
:he  Christian  doctrine  of  the  Messiah.”  But  this  is  because  Dr. 
iton  considers  the  Similitudes  of  Enoch  post-Christian  (cf.  pp.  61, 


42 


The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

We  have  already  had  occasion  to  point  out  the 
uniqueness  and  closeness  of  the  relation  to  God  which 
The  Uniqueness  is  indicated  by  the  designation  ‘ Son  of 
of  God  ’ as  ascribed  to  Jesus.  In  the 
Jesus*  Sonship  parable  of  Mark  12  not  only  is  it  em- 
phasized that  God  has  but  one  such  son  (verse  6), 
but  He  is  as  such  expressly  contrasted  with  all  God’s 
“servants”  (verses  2 and  4)  and  expressly  signalized 
as  God’s  “heir”  (verse  7).  As  we  read  this  parable 

140).  There,  but  apparently  there  only,  in  pre-Christian  Jewish  litera- 
ture the  Messiah  appears  as  Judge  of  the  world  to  whom  all  judgment 
has  been  committed  (see  Charles,  The  Book  of  Enoch,  128,  129). 
Hence  Dr.  Stanton  in  Hastings’  B.  D.  iii.  356  et  seq.  says  more  exactly: 
“In  this  document,  . . . He  is  to  be  the  Judge  in  the  universal  judg- 
ment, ...  a function  never  assigned  to  the  Messiah,  but  always 
ascribed  to  the  Most  High  in  other  Jewish  writings.”  Cf.  Salmond 
(Hastings’  B.  D.,  i,  751)  : “In  the  O.  T.  the  final  arbitrament  of  men’s 
lives  is  not  committed  to  the  Messiah  . . . Only  in  the  late  section  of 
the  Book  of  Enoch  does  the  Messiah  appear  in  any  certain  or  definite 
form  as  the  Judge  at  the  last  day.”  Perhaps,  however,  it  is  not  perfectly 
accurate  with  respect  to  this  particular  point  to  sum  up  as  Dr.  Salmond 
does,  thus:  “Christ’s  doctrine  of  a universal,  individual  judgment,  at 
the  end  of  things,  in  which  judgment  He  Himself  is  arbiter  of  human 
destinies,  carried  the  O.  T.  conception  to  its  proper  issue,  while  it  gave 
a new  certainty,  consistency  and  spirituality  to  the  developed  Idea  which 
had  arisen  in  Judaism  in  the  period  following  the  last  of  the  Jewish 
prophets.”  Though  Jesus  had  a forerunner  in  Enoch  in  conceiving  the 
Messiah  as  the  Judge  of  the  world.  He  does  not  seem  at  all  dependent 
on  Enoch  in  this  conception,  any  more  than  in  others  connected  with  it 
and  growing  out  of  the  common  reference  of  both  to  Dan  Sal_ 

mond,  Christian  Doct.  of  Immortality,  4 ed.,  282-284,  treats  the  whole 
subject  judiciously:  cf.  further  Charles,  Encyc.  Biblica,  1362,  §66,  and 
Expositor,  VI.  v.  251,  258;  also  Briggs,  Messianic  Prophecy,  154,  487. 
What  is  to  be  noted  is  that  In  the  Similitudes  of  Enoch,  where  alone  in 
pre-Christian  sources  the  judgment  is  attributed  to  the  Messiah,  the 
Messiah  is  conceived  as  a superhuman  Being,  the  Revealer  of  all  things, 
and  the  Messianic  Lord  of  the  earth,  i.e.  the  attribution  of  judgment  to 
Him  is  connected  with  the  attribution  of  other  divine  prerogatives  to 
Him  also,  so  that  the  implication  of  divinity  inherent  in  this  attribu- 
tion is  not  obscured. 


43 


Alark^s  Conception  of  Our  Lord 

the  mind  inevitably  reverts  again  to  the  representation 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  which  in  its  doctrine 
of  the  Son  (cf.  Heb  3®  etc.),  might  almost  appear 
a thetical  exposition  of  it.  And  in  the  immediate 
recognition  of  Jesus  as  the  ‘ Son  of  God  ’ by  the  evil 
spirits — “ as  soon  as  ever  they  caught  sight  of  Him 
— we  can  scarcely  fail  to  see  a testimony  from  the 
spiritual  world  to  a sonship  in  Jesus  surpassing  that 
of  mere  appointment  to  an  earthly  office  and  function 
and  rooted  in  what  lies  beyond  this  temporal  sphere. 
It  is  noteworthy  also  that  when  responding  to  the  ad- 
juration of  the  high  priest  to  declare  whether  He  were 
‘ the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  Blessed,’  Jesus  points  ap- 
parently to  His  exaltation  at  the  right  hand  of  power 
and  His  coming  with  the  clouds  of  heaven,  which  they 
were  to  see,  as  the  warranty  for  His  acceptance  of  the 
designation : as  much  as  to  say  that  to  be  ‘ the  Christ, 
the  Son  of  the  Blessed,’  involves  session  at  the  right 
hand  of  God  and  the  eternal  dominion  promised  in 
Daniel  (Mk  14^").  And  it  is  noticeable  farther  that 
immediately  upon  our  Lord’s  acceptance  of  the  ascrip- 
tion the  high  priest  accused  Him  of  blasphemy  (14®^), 
which  appears  to  be  an  open  indication  that  to  claim 
to  be  ‘ the  Son  of  the  Blessed  ’ was  all  one  with  claim- 
ing to  be  a divine  person.^^  Even  the  heathen  cen- 

® Cf.  Meyer  and  Swete  on  Mk  3^1. 

10  W.  C.  Allen,  on  Mt  26®^,  remarks:  “ Wellhausen  argues  that  the 
claim  to  be  the  Messiah  could  not,  according  to  Jewish  conceptions, 
have  been  regarded  as  a blasphemous  claim.  But  quite  apart  from  the 
exact  meaning  of  the  relationship  of  the  Messiah  to  God  which  is  im- 
plied in  such  terms  as  ‘ Son  of  God,’  ‘ Son  of  the  Blessed,’  the  nature  of 
the  Messiah  as  depicted  in  the  literature  of  the  period  as  of  earthly  and 
heavenly  origin  (cf.  Volz,  Jiid.  Eschat.,  pp.  214  f.)  is  such  that  claims 
to  be  the  Messiah  might  quite  well  be  regarded  as  blasphemous,  if  they 
were  untrue.”  This,  however,  seems  scarcely  well  founded.  Zahn 


44  The  Designations  of  Oiir  Lord 

turlon’s  enforced  conviction,  as  he  witnessed  the  cir- 
cumstances of  Jesus’  death,  that  this  man  certainly 
was  ‘ a Son  of  God,’  appears  to  be  recorded  for  no 
other  reason  (15^^)  than  to  make  plain  that  the  super- 
naturalness of  Jesus’  person  was  such  as  necessarily  to 
Impress  any  observer.  No  doubt  a heathen  centurion 
Is  but  a poor  witness  to  Jesus’  essential  nature;  and  no 
doubt  his  designation  of  Him  as  “ a son  of  God  ” 
must  needs  be  taken  In  a sense  consonant  with  his  stand- 
point as  a heathen. But  It  manifests  how  from  his 
own  standpoint  Jesus’  death  Impressed  him — as  the 
death,  to  wit,  of  one  of  superhuman  dignity.  And  Its 
record  seems  to  round  out  the  total  Impression  which 
Mark  appears  to  wish  to  make  In  his  use  of  the  phrase, 
viz.,  that  the  superhuman  dignity  of  Jesus  was  per- 
force recognized  and  testified  to  by  all  classes  and  by 
every  variety  of  witness.  The  spiritual  denizens  of 
another  world  3^^  5'^),  the  appointed  guardians 

of  the  spiritual  life  of  Israel  (14®^),  Jesus  Himself 
(126  j^32  1462^^  QqJ  Heaven  9"^),  and  even  the 
heathen  man  who  gazed  upon  Him  as  He  hung  on 
the  cross,  alike  certify  to  His  elevation,  as  the  Son 

(on  Mt,  pp.  694-5)  is  better:  “The  high  priest  demands  an  answer  not 
to  the  simple  question  whether  Jesus  gave  Himself  out  for  the  Messiah, 
but  whether  He  was  the  Messiah,  the  Son  of  God.  . . . The  mere 

affirmative  of  the  question  whether  He  were  the  Messiah,  could  not  be 
understood  by  the  whole  Sanhedrin  as  an  unambiguous  blasphemy.  It 
was  only  a liar  or  a fanatic  that  Jesus  could  have  been  called  on  that 
ground  by  those  who  did  not  believe  in  Him.  Jesus  affirmed,  however, 
also  the  other  question,  whether  He  was  the  Son  of  God ; and  indeed 
on  oath,  since  he  was  sworn  by  the  Living  God  (I  Kings 

Wellhausen’s  remark  need  not  be  disputed:  “The  centurion  uses 
the  expression  ‘Son  of  God’  not,  like  the  high  priest  (14®!),  as  an 
epithet  of  the  Jewish  Messiah,  but  in  the  heathen  sense;  he  says  also 
not  ‘the  Son’  but  ‘a  son’  of  God”  (on  15^^). 


^Mark^s  Conception  of  Our  Lord  45 

d£  God,  in  the  supernatural  dignity  of  His  person, 
above  all  that  is  earthly,  all  “ servants  ” and  “ min- 
sters ” of  God  whatever,  including  the  very  angels. 
[Certainly  this  designation,  ‘ Son  of  God,’  is  colored  so 
ieeply  with  supernatural  implications  that  even  apart 
From  such  a passage  as  13^^  where  the  superangelic 
lature  of  the  Son  is  openly  expressed,  we  cannot  avoid 
roncluding  (cf.  especially  12^  14®^  15^^)  that  a super- 
latural  personality  as  well  as  a supernatural  office  is 
ntended  to  be  understood  by  it.  And  if  so,  in  view 
)f  the  nature  of  the  term  itself,  it  is  difficult  to  doubt 
:hat  this  supernaturalness  of  personality  is  intended 
o be  taken  at  the  height  of  the  Divine.  What  can 
he  Son,  the  unique  and  “ beloved  ” Son  of  God,  who 
dso  is  God’s  heir,  in  contradistinction  from  all  His 
.ervants,  even  the  angels,  be — but  God  Himself? 

It  has  already  been  suggested  that  something  of  this 
mplication  is  embedded  in  the  employment  of  the 
Jesus  designation  ‘Bridegroom’  (2^^’“'^)  of 
Assimilated  to  our  Lord.  For  there  is  certainly  in- 
Jehovah  volved  in  it  not  merely  the  representa- 
:ion,  afterwards  copiously  developed  in  the  New  Tes- 
ament,  of  our  Lord  as  the  Bridegroom  of  the  people 
)f  God,  by  virtue  of  which  His  Church  is  His  bride 
[Mt  22^  25^  Jno  3“^  Rom  7^  2 Cor  ii^,  Eph  5^^  Rev 
9'^  2 1“’^),  but  also  a reminiscence  of  those  Old  Tes- 
ament  passages,  of  which  Hos  2^^  may  be  taken  as  the 
ype  (cf.  Ex  20'^,  Jer  2“^,  Ezek  which 

[ehovah’s  relation  to  His  people  is  set  forth  under  the 
igure  of  that  of  a loving  husband  to  his  wife.  In 
)ther  words,  the  use  of  ‘ the  Bridegroom  ’ as  a designa- 
ion  of  our  Lord  assimilates  His  relation  to  the  people 
)f  God  to  that  which  in  the  Old  Testament  is  exclu- 


46  The  Designations  of  Oiir  Lord 

sively,  even  jealously,  occupied  by  Jehovah  Himself, 
and  raises  the  question  whether  Jesus  is  not  thereby, 
in  some  sense,  at  any  rate,  identified  with  Jehovahd* 
This  question  once  clearly  raised,  other  phenomena 
y obtrude  themselves  at  once  upon  our  attention.  We 
are  impelled,  for  example,  to  ask  afresh  what  sense 
our  Lord  put  upon  the  words  of  the  noth  Psalm, 
“ The  Lord  said  unto  my  Lord,  ‘ Sit  Thou  on  my  right 
hand  till  I make  Thine  enemies  the  footstool  of  Thy 
feet,’”  when  (Mk  He  adduced  them  to 

rebuke  the  Jews  for  conceiving  the  Christ  as  only  the 
son  of  David,  whereas  David  himself  in  this  passage, 
and  that  speaking  in  the  Spirit,  expressly  calls  Him 
his  Lord?  It  is  not  merely  the  term  ‘Lord’  wLich 
comes  into  consideration  here;  but  the  exaltation  which 
the  application  of  the  term  in  this  connection  to  Him 
assipns  to  the  Messiah.  The  scribes  would  have  had 

o 

no  difficulty  in  understanding  that  the  Messiah  should 
be  David’s  “ greater  son,”  who  should — nay,  must — 
because  Messiah,  occupy  a higher  place  in  the  King- 
dom of  God  than  even  His  great  father.^^  The  point 
of  the  argument  turns  on  the  supreme  exaltation  of 
the  Lordship  ascribed  to  Him,  Implying  something  su- 
perhuman in  the  Messiah’s  personality  and  therefore 
in  His  origin.  Who  is  this  ‘ Lord  ’ who  is  to  sit  at 

12  Cf.  Streatfeild,  The  Self -Interpretation  of  Jesus  Christ,  pp.  92,  93: 
“What  that  term  meant  to  the  mind  of  the  Jew  may  be  gathered  from 
a study  of  the  prophetic  writings,  which  frequently  portray  God  as 
the  Husband  of  His  people,  and  denounce  the  disobedience  and  idolatry 
of  Israel  as  spiritual  adultery.  For  any  one  to  speak  of  Himself  as  the 
Bridegroom  of  the  Kingdom  was  little  short  of  a claim  to  Deity:  the 
title  was  an  impossible  one  for  man.” 

13  Dalman,  p.  285:  “There  would  indeed  be  nothing  remarkable  In 
the  fact  that  a son  should  attain  a higher  rank  than  his  father,  and  for 
the  scribes  It  would  not  in  the  least  be  strange  that  the  Messiah  should 
be  greater  than  David.” 


Markus  Conception  of  Our  Lord  47 

:he  right  hand  of  the  ‘ Lord  ’ who  is  Jehovah,  and 
:o  whom  David  himself  therefore  does  reverence?  It 
s hard  to  believe  that  our  Lord  intended — or  was 
understood  by  Mark  to  intend — by  such  a designation 
)f  the  Messiah,  who  He  Himself  was,  to  attribute  to 
^im  less  than  a superhuman — or  shall  we  not  even 
ay  a divine — dignity,  by  virtue  of  which  He  should 
)e  recognized  as  rightfully  occupying  the  throne  of 
jodd^  To  sit  at  the  right  hand  of  God  is  to  partici- 
)ate  in  the  divine  dominion,^®  which,  as  it  is  a greater 
han  human  dignity,  would  seem  to  require  a greater 
ban  human  nature.  To  be  in  this  sense  David’s  Lord 
alls  little  if  anything  short  of  being  David’s  God.^® 
In  estimating  the  significance  of  such  a passage,  we 
nust  not  permit  to  fall  out  of  sight  the  constant  use 
Jesus  of  the  term  ‘ Lord  ’ in  the  Lxx  version 
Identified  with  of  the  Old  Testament  for  God.^’’^  There 
Jehovah  jg  <<  practically  equivalent  to  God 

[6^6^)  and  is  the  rendering  of  the  solemn  name  of 
[ehovah.”^®  The  writers  of  the  New  Testament,  and 

So  Dalman  {Words,  214)  says  shortly:  “He  whom  David  called 
Lord’  was  no  mere  man”  (cf.  pp.  385-7).  Dalman  thinks  there  is 
o hint  of  “the  two  natures”  in  the  passage:  this  may  be  doubted  (cf. 
deyer  on  Mt  22^®,  and  Alexander  in  loc.,  also  Delitzsch  on  Ps  no,  p. 
85)  ; but  this  need  not  be  pressed  here. 

Cf.  Delitzsch,  Psalms,  iii.  p,  189.  Stanton,  Jewish  and  Christian 
lessiah,  ioi-2,  points  out  that  there  is  no  difficulty  in  supposing  that 
>avid  himself  may  have  anticipated  a greater  son:  “Knowing  how  far 
e had  himself  fallen  below  the  standard  of  the  true  covenant  king, 
nd  how  the  glory  and  prosperity  of  his  reign  had  been  marred  through 
le  consequences  of  his  own  sins,  he  might  thus  in  spirit  pay  homage 
) a greater  descendant.” 

Cf.  Swete’s  note  on  Mk 

Cf.  D.  Somerville,  St.  Paul’s  Conception  of  Christ,  pp.  295  et  seq, 
Somerville,  p.  143.  The  supplanting  of  Jehovah  by  ‘ Lord  ’ in  the 
XX  of  course  rests  upon  the  K^ri  perpetuum  by  which  Adhonai  was 
iibstituted  for  the  “ ineffable  name  ” in  the  reading  of  the  Hebrew 


48  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

Mark  among  them,  must  be  understood  to  have  been 
thoroughly  familiar  with  this  use  of  the  term,  and  could 
scarcely  fail  to  see  in  its  appellative  application  to 
Christ  a suggestion  of  His  deity,  when  the  implications 
of  the  context  were,  as  we  have  seen  them  repeatedly 
to  be,  of  His  superhuman  dignity  and  nature.  Par- 
ticularly when  they  apply  to  Him  Old  Testament 
passages  in  which  the  term  ‘ Lord  ’ refers  to  God,  we 
can  scarcely  suppose  they  do  so  without  a consciousness 
of  the  implications  involved,  and  without  a distinct 
intention  to  convey  them.^®  When,  for  example,  in  the 
opening  verses  of  Mark,  we  read:  “ Even  as  it  is  writ- 
ten in  Isaiah  the  prophet.  Behold  I send  my  messenger 
before  thy  face,  who  shall  prepare  thy  way;  The  voice 
of  one  crying  in  the  wilderness,  make  ye  ready  the  way 
of  the  Lord,  make  His  paths  straight, — [so]  John 
came,”  etc.,  we  cannot  easily  rid  ourselves  of  the  im- 
pression that  the  term  ‘ Lord  ’ is  applied  to  Jesus.  The 
former  of  the  two  prophetic  citations  here  brought 

text.  This  in  turn,  however,  rests  upon  the  connection  of  the  idea  of 
‘Lord’  with  ‘Jehovah.’  “Jehovah,”  says  Oehler  {Theology  of  the 
O.  T.,  E.  T.,  ed.  Day,  1883,  p.  loi),  “ is  the  Lord  . . . That  the  idea 
of  is  immediately  connected  with  the  idea  of  Jehovah  is  clear 

from  the  fact  that  the  two  names  are  frequently  associated,  and  that 
''JTX  would  in  later  times  be  substituted  in  reading  for  niH'  . . .” 

When  our  Lord  is  called  ‘ Lord,’  therefore,  in  the  divine  sense,  it  is 
to  Jehovah  specifically  that  the  suggestion  points. 

Cf.  Stanton,  Jewish  and  Christian  Messiah,  197,  198  and  Note  on 
the  latter  page.  Speaking  of  passages  like  these  he  says:  “ Deut  33^ 
appears  to  be  alluded  to  in  various  places  in  the  Synoptists.  It  is  a 
passage  which  speaks  in  the  clearest  terms  of  Jehovah  coming  to  judg- 
ment, and  the  attribution  of  the  language  in  the  Synoptists  to  the 
second  coming  of  the  Christ  is  an  indication  of  the  existence,  even  in 
the  body  of  tradition  which  they  record,  of  a belief  in  the  oneness  of 
Christ  with  God.”  Mutatis  mutandis,  this  remark  applies  to  the  passage 
immediately  to  be  adduced. 


49 


"Markus  Conception  of  Our  Lord 

together  is  distinctly  made  to  refer  to  Christ,  by  a 
change  in  the  pronouns  from  the  form  they  bear  in 
the  original — though  the  reference  in  the  original  is 
to  Jehovah:  and  this  by  an  inevitable  consequence 
carries  with  it  the  reference  of  the  latter  also  to 
Christ.®®  But  in  the  original  of  Isaiah  40^  again 
the  reference  of  the  term  ‘ Lord  ’ is  to  Jehovah. 
Here  we  see  Jesus  then  identified  by  means  of 
the  common  term  ‘ Lord  ’ with  Jehovah.®^  Of 
course  it  may  be  said  that  it  is  not  Jesus  who 
is  identified  with  Jehovah,  but  the  coming  of  Jesus 
which  is  identified  with  the  “ advent  of  Jehovah  ” 
to  redeem  His  people  predicted  so  frequently  in 
the  Old  Testament.®®  And  this  explanation  might 

2®  So  Sven  Herner  {op.  cit.,  pp.  7 et  seq.,  cf.  pp.  4,  5)  solidly  argues. 

21  Cf.  A.  B.  Davidson,  The  Theology  of  the  O.  T.,  p.  262:  “That 

splendid  passage,  Is  which  speaks  of  Jehovah  coming  in 

strength,  that  is,  in  His  fulness,  and  feeding  His  flock  like  a shepherd, 
s interpreted  in  the  Gospels  of  the  Son.  It  was  in  the  Son,  or  as  the 
Son,  that  Jehovah  so  manifested  Himself.  By  the  Old  Testament 
prophet  a distinction  in  the  Godhead  was  not  thought  of;  but  subse- 
ijuent  revelation  casts  light  on  the  preceding.  The  Lord,  the  Re- 
deemer and  Judge,  is  God  in  the  Son.” 

22  According  to  Dr.  A.  B.  Davidson’s  representation  this  Is  as  far 
IS  the  Old  Testament  writers  themselves  go  with  regard  to  the  Mes- 
siah. They  came  to  look  upon  the  coming  of  the  Messianic  King  as 
he  coming  of  Jehovah;  but  not  as  if  the  Messiah  were  Jehovah,  but 
Dnly  as  if  in  the  Messiah  Jehovah  came  to  His  people.  Cf.  e.g.  The 
Theology  of  the  O.  T.,  p.  385:  “It  may  be  doubtful  if  the  O.  T.  went 
so  far  as  to  identify  the  Messiah  with  Jehovah  or  to  represent  the  Mes- 
siah as  divine.  It  went  the  length  of  saying,  however,  that  Jehovah 
would  be  present  in  His  fulness  in  the  Messiah,  so  that  the  Messiah 
night  fitly  be  named  ‘God  with  us’  and  ‘Mighty  God.’”  He  adds: 
‘ It  was  not  a difficult  step  to  take,  to  infer  that  the  Messiah  was  Him- 
self God,  and  that  because  He  was  God  He  was  Saviour;  and  then 
:o  apply  even  those  passages  which  speak  of  Jehovah’s  coming  in  per- 
son to  His  coming  as  Messiah.”  It  was  this  step  that  (if  it  remained 
to  be  taken)  was  taken  by  our  Lord  and  the  evangelists. 


52  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

more  credible  that  Mark  claimed  for  Him  an  even 
more  supernatural  descent  as  an  adult  from  heaven? 
Mark,  in  a word,  leaves  the  exposition  of  these  things 
to  others.  It  is  Matthew  and  Luke  who  complete  the 
story  by  the  record  of  the  supernatural  birth.  It  is 
. John  who  develops  all  the  implications  of  Jesus’  pre- 
V,  existence.  But  all  that  these  bring  to  expression  in 
their  fuller  accounts  is  implied  in  Mark’s  narrative,  in 
which  he  incidentally  tells  us  of  the  dignity  of  that 
person’s  nature  whose  wonderful  career  he  has  under- 
taken to  describe.  And  there  is  no  reason  why  we 
should  suppose  him  ignorant  of  the  implications  of  his 
own  facts,  especially  when  his  purpose  in  writing  did 
not  call  for  the  explication  of  these  implications.  In 
a word,  it  seems  clear  enough  that  there  lies  behind 
the  narrative  of  Mark  not  an  undeveloped  christology, 
Vbut  only  an  unexpressed  one.  To  give  expression  to 
his  christology  did  not  lie  within  the  limits  of  the 
task  he  had  undertaken.^® 

23  Cf.  a careful  precis  of  Mark’s  Conception  of  the  Verson  and  Office 
of  Christ  in  a section  of  Dr.  Swete’s  Introduction  to  his  commentary  on 
Mark:  pp.  xc-xcv.  If  we  should  put  together,  simply,  the  elements  of 
Mark’s  christology,  perhaps  it  might  be  expressed  as  follows:  Jesus 

was  a man,  appointed  by  God  Messiah,  and  endowed  for  His  Messianic 
^ tasks;  but  not  a mere  man,  but  a superhuman  being,  in  rank  and  dig- 
nity above  angels  (13^^),  who  “came”  to  earth  for  a mission.  This 
mission  was  not  to  be  ministered  unto,  but  to  minister,  and  accordingly 
involved  humiliation  and  suffering:  but  a humiliation  and  suffering 
not  for  Himself  but  vicarious  (lo^®,  cf.  2^'^).  He  prosecuted  this  min- 
Cistry  by  a career  of  preaching  (1^®),  and  in  the  end  died  and  rose 
again  that  He  might  give  His  life  a ransom  for  many  (10^^).  Mean- 
time, being  God’s  beloved  Son,  the  heavenly  King  of  God’s  own  King- 
dom predicted  in  Daniel,  the  Lord  of  the  House  (13^®,  cf.  ii^)  and 
no  servant  (12®,  cf.  9'^),  not  merely  David’s  son  but  David’s  Lord 
(i235)  who  is  Jehovah  Himself  (i^).  He  had  in  His  hands  all  author- 
■’  ity  (i22  1 27  210  228  ^^41  ^43^  (,f.  1^1  2^  9~^)  y and  exercised  all  divine 
prerogatives — controlling  evil  spirits,  the  laws  of  nature,  death  itself, — 


'Markus  Conception  of  Our  Lord  53 

We  must  guard  ourselves  especially  from  imagining 
lat  the  recognition  found  in  Mark  of  the  deity  of 
Mark’s  Jesus  is  in  any  way  clouded  by  the  em- 
Conception  of  phasis  he  places  on  the  Messiahship  of 
le  Messiahship  ^g  fundamental  fact  of  His 

lission.  We  have  already  had  occasion  to  point  out 
lat  the  Messiahship  and  the  deity  of  Jesus  are  not 
lutually  exclusive  conceptions.  Even  on  the  purely 
ewish  plane  it  was  possible  to  conceive  the  Messiah 

supernatural  person:  and  He  is  so  conceived,  for 
sample,  in  the  Similitudes  of  Enoch  and  the  Visions 
f 4 Esdras.  The  recognition  of  the  deity  of  Jesus 
y Mark — and  by  Jesus  as  reported  by  Mark — in  no 
^ay  interferes  with  the  central  place  taken  in  Mark’s 
arrative — and  in  Jesus’  thought  of  Himself  as  re- 
orted  by  Mark, — by  our  Lord’s  Messianic  claims.  It 
nly  deepens  the  conception  of  the  Messiahship  which 
; presented  as  the  conception  which  Jesus  fulfilled, 
"he  result  is  merely  that  the  Christian  movement  be- 
omes,  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  history  of  the 
dessianic  ideal,  an  attempt  to  work  a change  in  the 
urrent  conception  of  the  Messianic  office — a change 
Eich  involved  its  broadening  to  cover  a wider  area 
f Old  Testament  prophecy  and  its  deepening  to  em- 
ody  spiritual  rather  than  prevailingly  external  aspira- 
!ons.^^  We  have  already  noted  that  our  Lord’s 

ading  the  heart  and  the  future  (9^^  and  forgiving  sin  on 

irth,  and  after  His  dying  rose  again  and  in  His  own  proper  time  will 
turn  in  the  clouds  of  heaven  with  the  angels  to  establish  the  King- 
)m  and  judge  the  world. 

24  Cf.  Wellhausen,  Mark,  p.  71 : “I  can  find  this  at  least  not  incred- 
le,  that  Jesus  was  pleased  with  the  name  of  the  Jewish  ideal,  and 
;t  changed  its  contents,  and  that  not  merely  with  respect  to  the  Mes- 
ah,  but  analogously  also  with  respect  to  the  Kingdom  of  God.”  How 


54  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

preference  for  His  self-designation  of  the  title  ‘ Son 
of  Man  ’ over  other  more  current  titles  is  indicatory 
of  His  enlarged  and  enriched  conception  of  the  Mes- 
siahship : and  we  have  already  hinted  that  even  the 
title  ‘ Son  of  Man  ’ only  partly  suggests  the  contents 
of  His  conception,  elements  of  which  found  their 
adumbration  in  yet  other  portions  of  Old  Testament 
prediction.  Among  these  further  elements  of  Old 
Testament  prophecy  taken  up  into  and  given  validity 
in  His  conception,  there  are  especially  notable  those 
that  portray  the  Righteous  Servant  of  Jehovah,  cul- 
minating in  the  53d  chapter  of  Isaiah,  and  those  that 
set  forth  what  has  appropriately  been  called  the  “ Ad- 
vent of  Jehovah,” — the  promises,  in  a word,  of  the 
intervention  of  Jehovah  Himself  to  redeem  His  people. 

Wellhausen  would  have  such  a remark  understood,  however,  may  be 
dcommodiously ^learned  from  his  section  on  “ the  Jewish  and  the  Chris- 
tian Messiah  ” in  the  closing  pages  of  his  Einleitung  in  die  drei  ersten 
Evangelien  (1905).  The  Christian  conception  of  the  Messiah,  such  as 
lies  on  the  pages  of  Mark,  for  example — that  paradoxical  contradiction 
of  the  gallows-Messiah,  formed  on  the  basis  of  the  actual  crucifixion  of 
Jesus — is  of  course  the  product  of  the  time  subsequent  to  the  death  of 
Jesus;  but  its  existence  would  be  inexplicable  without  the  assumption 
that  Jesus  was  supposed  by  His  followers  to  be  the  Messiah,  although 
of  course  in  His  life-time  it  was  not  this  Christian  conception  but  the 
ordinary  Jewish  conception  of  the  Messiah  which  they  attributed  to 
Him.  The  attitude  of  Jesus  Himself  to  this  ascription  of  Messiahship 
to  Him  Wellhausen  finds  it  somewhat  difficult  to  determine  (p.  92). 
He  is  certain  that  Jesus  did  not  follow  the  method  of  the  Pseudochrists 
and  openly  proclaim  Himself  Messiah;  but  he  thinks  that  there  are 
indications  that  He  did  not  repel  the  notion  when  applied  to  Him — 
though,  of  course,  this  involved  an  “ accommodation,”  as  He  was  by 
no  means  prepared  to  meet  the  expectations  connected  with  the  title. 
It  was  no  doubt,  then,  as  a religious  regenerator,  not  as  a political 
restorer,  that  He  accepted  the  title;  but  this  remained  at  least  so  far 
within  Jewish  limits  as  not  to  involve  that  complete  renunciation  of 
Judaism  which  “ lies  in  the  conception  of  the  gallows-Messiah,  of  the 
Messiah  rejected  by  the  Jews,”  of  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament. 


Markus  Conception  of  Our  Lord  55 

It  may  be  very  easy  to  do  less  than  justice  to  the  Mes- 
sianic Ideal  current  among  the  Jewish  people  at  the 
time  of  our  Lord,  centering  as  It  did  In  the  hope  of 
the  establishment  of  an  external  kingdom  endowed 
with  the  irresistible  might  of  God.  Of  course  this 
Kingdom  of  God  was  conceived  as  a kingdom  of 
righteousness;  and  it  may  be  possible  to  show  that 
most  of  the  Items  that  enter  into  the  Old  Testament 
predictions,  including  that  of  redemption  from  sin, 
were  not  wholly  neglected  In  one  or  another  form 
of  Its  expression.  The  difference  between  It  and  the 
Messianic  conception  developed  by  Jesus  and  His  fol- 
lowers may  thus  almost  be  represented  as  merely  a 
difference  of  emphasis.*®  But  a difference  of  emphasis 
may  be  far  from  a small  difference;  and  the  effect 
of  the  difference  in  this  case  certainly  amounted  to  a 
difference  in  kind.  This  new  Messianic  Ideal  Is  un- 
mistakably apparent  In  Mark’s  conception  and  In  the 
conception  of  Jesus  as  represented  by  Mark’s  record 
of  His  sayings.  We  can  trace  In  Mark’s  record 
the  Influence  of  factors  recalling  the  Righteous  Serv- 
ant (lo^®  9^*  14*^  and  the  Divine  Redeemer  (i^) 
as  well  as  the  Danielle  Son  of  Man.*®  But  these  fac- 

On  this  general  subject  see  two  or  three  very  strong  pages  in 
Dalman,  Words,  pp.  295-299:  cf.  Stanton,  134. 

26  Speaking  of  the  conception  embodied  in  the  title  ‘ Son  of  Man  ’ by 
Dur  Lord  as  reported  in  the  Gospels,  Charles  {The  Book  of  Enoch,  pp. 
312-317)  argues  that  it  included  in  it  all  the  ideas  suggested  by  the 
Servant  of  Jehovah  of  Isaiah,  and  therefore  so  far  commends  Bartlet’s 
:onstruction  {Expositor,  Dec.  1892).  Says  Charles  (p.  316):  “This 
:ransformed  conception  of  the  Son  of  Man  is  thus  permeated  through- 
)ut  by  the  Isaian  conception  of  the  Servant  of  Jehovah;  but  though 
:he  Enochic  conception  is  fundamentally  transformed,  the  transcendent 
daims  underlying  it  are  not  for  a moment  forgotten.”  If  we  may  be 
permitted  to  find  the  preadumbration  of  the  “ transcendent  ” element  of 


56  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

tors  attain  fuller  expression  in  the  records  of  the  other 
evangelists.  So  that  here  too  we  find  them  bringing 
out  into  clearness  what  already  lies  in  Mark  rather 
than  adding  anything  really  new  to  his  presentation. 

this  conception,  not  in  Enoch  but  in  the  O.  T.  representation  of  the 
Advent  of  Jehovah,  Charles’  conception  of  the  Messianic  ideal  of  our 
Lord,  for  the  expression  of  which  He  chose  the  term  ‘ Son  of  Man,^ 
seems  to  us  generally  just.  It  is — for  whatever  reason — essentially  a 
synthesis  of  the  three  lines  of  prediction  embodied  in  the  Isaianic 
“ Servant  of  Jehovah,”  the  Danielic  “ Son  of  Man,”  and  the  general 
T.  “ Advent  of  Jehovah,”  along  with  which  the  other  lines  of 
prophecy — such  as  those  embodied  in  the  “ Davidic  King  ” — also  find 
their  place. 


THE  DESIGNATIONS  OF  OUR  LORD  IN 
MATTHEW 


When  we  turn  to  Matthew’s  Gospel,  and  observe 
the  designations  applied  in  it  to  our  Lord,  what  chiefly 
strikes  us  is  that  it  runs  in  this  matter  on  precisely  the 
same  lines  with  Mark,  with  only  this  difference,  that 
what  is  more  or  less  latent  in  Mark  becomes  fully 
^patent  in  Matthew. 

The  narrative  name  of  our  Lord  is  in  Matthew 
(as  in  Mark)  the  simple  ‘ Jesus’;  which  (as  in  Mark) 
The  Narrative  never  occurs  as  other  than  the  narra- 
Name,  and  tive  name,  with  the  single  exception 
Exceptions  (which  is  no  exception)  that  in  an- 
nouncing His  birth  the  Angel  of  the  Lord  is  reported 
as  commanding,  “ Thou  shalt  call  His  name  Jesus  ” 
(i^^).  And  not  only  does  Matthew,  like  Mark,  re- 
serve the  simple  ‘ Jesus  ’ for  his  narrative  name,  but, 
also  like  Mark,  he  practically  confines  himself  to  it. 
The  only  outstanding  exceptions  to  this  are  that  Mat- 
thew sets  (like  Mark)  the  solemn  Messianic  designa- 
tion ‘Jesus  Christ’  in  the  heading  of  his  Gospel  (i^), 
and  follows  this  up  (unlike  Mark)  by  repeating  it  both 
at  the  opening  of  his  formal  narrative  (i^®),  and  at 
an  important  new  starting  point  in  his  narrative 
( i62i  V.  r.^  .1  employs  a certain  fulness  of  des- 

1 In  all  tliese  three  places  ’’lyjffoo?  Xpifft6<;  seems  to  be  used  as  a proper 
name.  Meyer  (i^,  p.  51)  says:  “In  the  Gospels  Xpiard^  stands  as  a 
proper  name  only  in  Mt  Mk  Jno  . . . here  also 

57 


58  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

ignation  throughout  the  formal  genealogy  with  which 
the  Gospel  begins,  by  which  he  places  the  ‘ Jesus  ’ of 
whom  he  is  to  speak  clearly  before  the  readers  and 
clearly  as  the  Messiah.  “ The  book  of  the  generation 
of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  David,  the  Son  of  Abra- 
ham ” (i^)  is  the  phraseology  with  which  he  opens 
this  genealogy:  he  closes  it  with  the  words,  “Mary 
of  whom  was  born  Jesus  surnamed  Christ” 
and  in  the  summary  which  he  adjoins  he  calculates  the 
generations  “ unto  Christ  ” (i^^) — a designation  which 
meets  us  again  at  ii^.  Thus  Matthew  in  beginning 
his  Gospel  leaves  no  room  for  doubting  that  he  pur- 
poses to  present  the  story  of  Jesus’  life  as  the  life  of 
the  Messiah;  but  as  soon  as  he  has  given  that  formal 
emphatic  enunciation,  he  takes  up  the  narrative  with 
the  simple  ‘ Jesus  ’ and  with  only  the  two  breaks  at 
ii^  and  carries  it  on  with  the  simple  ‘Jesus’ 

to  the  end.^  The  simple  ‘Jesus’  occurs  thus  in  his 

(cf.  Mk  1^),  in  the  superscription,  the  whole  of  the  great  name’/Ty^roo? 
Xpc(Tr6?  is  highly  appropriate,  nay,  necessary.” 

2 The  name  ‘Jesus’  occurs  in  Matthew  about  149  times.  Of  these, 
on  nine  occasions  it  is  used  in  combination  with  additional  designa- 
tions (‘Jesus  Christ,’  i6~^;  ‘Jesus  surnamed  Christ,’  27'^’^ 

‘Jesus  the  Nazarene,’  26^1;  ‘Jesus  the  Galilean,’  2669;  ‘the  prophet 
Jesus  who  is  from  Nazareth  of  Galilee,’  21II;  ‘Jesus  the  King  of  the 
Jews,’  2767).  The  simple  ‘Jesus’  occurs  therefore  about  140  times; 
and  always  is  Matthew’s  own  except  i2i.  It  is  according  to  Moulton 
and  Geden  anarthrous  in  the  following  passages:  (i^)  1i6.21.25 
(l621)  178  2017.30  2i1.12  2661.69,71,75  2717,22,37  286. 9 (l8[2o]  in  all). 
Two  of  these  instances  (178  and  aoU)  may,  however,  be  eliminated  as 
probably  false  readings.  ‘Jesus  Christ,’  iS  is  properly  without  the 
article,  both  because  that  is  the  regular  usage  with  proper  names  in 
headings,  and  because  that  is  the  regular  usage  with  the  first  mention 
of  a proper  name;  1621  is  to  be  looked  upon  in  accordance  with  this 
as  a new  beginning;  while  at  the  article  is  present  because  it  takes 
up  the  ‘Jesus  Christ’  of  ii  again,  further  explained  at  as  the 
“Jesus  surnamed  Christ,”  and  hence  is  almost  equivalent  to  ‘"this  Jesus 
Christ.”  In  ii®  2717.22  2669.71  2731,  the  article  is  properly  absent  on 


The  Designations  in  Matthew  59 

narrative  about  139  times,  and  is  replaced  only  by  the 
compound  ‘ Jesus  Christ  ’ ( 16^^  cf.  , and  by 
the  simple  ‘Christ’  ii^  cf.  i^®),  each,  at  most 
three  times. 

In  this  sparing  use  of  ‘ Jesus  Christ  ’ and  ‘ Christ  ’ 
by  Matthew  himself,  the  term  ‘ Christ  ’ appears  to  be 
‘Christ*  employed  not  as  an  appellative  but 
as  a Proper  as  a proper  name.  In  2^,  no  doubt, 
Name  Christ  ” is  used  in  the  general 

sense  of  “the  Messiah”:  Herod  did  not  inquire  of 
“ the  chief  priests  and  scribes  of  the  people  ” where 
Jesus  was  born,  but  where,  according  to  prophecy,  “ the 
; Messiah  should  be  born”:  but  just  on  that  account 
there  is  no  direct  reference  to  Jesus  at  all  here.  The 
commentators  are  very  generally  inclined  to  look  upon 
the  use  of  “ the  Christ  ” in  1 as  a similar  instance, 
as  if  what  John  had  heard  in  the  prison  was  that  “ the 
works  of  the  Messiah  ” — such  works,  that  is,  as  were 
expected  of  the  Messiah, — were  occurring  abroad;  and 
accordingly  sent  and  asked  Jesus  whether  He  was  in- 
deed “ the  Coming  One.”®  Attractive  as  this  explana- 

the  general  rule  that  it  is  always  omitted  as  superfluous  in  the  presence 
of  a defining  appositional  phrase  with  the  article  (Blass,  p.  152;  Moul- 
ton-Winer,  140-1).  Perhaps  even  28®  may  be  classed  here.  Blass 
(152)  supposes  the  omission  of  the  article  at  28^  regular,  on  the  ground 
that  no  anaphora  is  conceivable  there.  In  20^®  the  article  seems  want- 
ing because  (present,  * passeth')  the  clause  is  a quotation  from  the 
popular  mouth,  and  the  use  of  ‘ Jesus  ’ does  not  range  anaphorically 
with  preceding  instances;  possibly  28®  may  be  so  explained.  In  121,26 
certainly  an  article  would  be  out  of  place.  There  remain  14I  2i^'^2 
2651,75,  3Q  explanation  of  which  does  not  readily  present  itself.  The 
use  of  the  article  with  personal  names  seems  to  have  been  capricious  in 
the  Greek  of  all  ages  (cf.  J.  H.  Moulton,  Grammar,  p.  83 ; Moulton’s 
Winer,  140;  Schmiedel-Winer,  153;  Blass,  152). 

2 “John  the  Baptist,”  says  Holtzmann  {Hand-Corn.,  133),  “was 
almost  persuaded  that  Jesus  could  fulfil  the  Messianic  purpose,  that 
His  works  were  therefore  of  the  Messianic  variety  roo  Xpi(iTou)t* 


6o 


The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

tion  is,  however,  it  scarcely  seems  to  fit  in  with  the 
connection.  Jesus’  exhibition  of  His  works  to  the  mes- 
sengers would  hardly  in  these  circumstances  have  been 
an  answer  to  John’s  inquiry,  so  much  as  rather  a refusal 
to  give  an  answer.  And  the  connection  of  the  pronoun 
“ Him  ” in  verse  3 with  its  antecedent  “ Christ  ” of 
verse  2 appears  to  require  us  to  take  that  term  not  as 
a general  but  as  a particular  one:  John  surely  is  not 
said  to  have  sent  to  “ the  Messiah  ” and  inquired  of 
“ Him  ” whether  He  was  the  Messiah.  In  other  words 
if  “the  Christ”  (o  XpiaroQ)  can  be  taken  as  a proper 
name,  designating  Jesus,  surely  it  must  be  so  taken  here. 
And  that  it  can  be  so  taken  and  is  so  taken  by  Matthew, 
its  use  in  appears  to  show. 

“ The  Christ  ” in  also  has  sometimes,  to  be 

“The  works  which  Jesus  does,”  says  Wellhausen  in  loc.,  “rouse  doubts 
in  John  whether  He  is  really  the  Christ;  for  he  had  expected  from  the 
Christ  something  wholly  different.  Just  on  this  account  Matthew  calls 
them  the  works  of  the  Christ;  . . . the  Baptist  turns,  however, 
with  his  doubts  to  Jesus  Himself  and  leaves  the  decision  to  Him.” 
“ The  nvorks/’  comments  J.  A.  Alexander,  “ i.e.  the  miracles  (Lk  7^®) 
of  Christ,  not  of  Jesus  as  a private  person,  but  of  the  Messiah,  which 
He  claimed  to  be,  . . . The  meaning  then  is  that  John  heard  in 
prison  of  miraculous  performances  appearing  and  purporting  to  be 
wrought  by  the  Messiah.”  These  commentators  seem  to  suppose  that 
Mt  is  to  be  rendered  somewhat  like  this:  “But  John,  because  he 
heard  in  his  prison  through  the  medium  of  his  disciples  of  [talk  about] 
the  works  of  the  Messiah,  sent  through  the  medium  of  his  disciples  to 
* ask  Him,  Art  thou  the  Coming  One,  or  are  we  to  look  for  another?” 
The  query  arises,  however,  to  whom  John  sent  this  inquiry?  To  “the 
Messiah”?  Or  to  Jesus?  What,  then,  is  the  antecedent  of  the  abrih} 
As  the  abrm  is  Jesus,  so  its  antecedent  rob  Xpurrob  is  Jesus:  and  the 
concrete  rather  than  the  abstract  seems  more  natural.  Why  not  then 
translate:  “Having  heard  of  the  works  of  Christ  he  sent  and  asked 
Him”?  The  solution  seems  to  depend  on  whether  J XpuTr6<;\s  used 
always  as  a pure  appellative  in  Mat.,  or  sometimes  as  a nomen  pro^ 
prium,  or  at  least  as  a quasi  nomen  proprium.  But  the  answer  to  that 
is  scarcely  doubtful  (e.g. 


The  Designations  in  Matthew  6i 

sure,  been  understood  as  the  general  term,  “ the  Mes- 
siah.”^ But  this  throws  it  out  of  range  not  only  with 
the  other  names  in  this  simple  summary,  wherein  the 
corresponding  terms  in  the  accounting  are  most  simply 
given — Abraham,  David,  the  Babylonian  deportation; 
but  also  with  the  precedent  phrase,  ‘ Jesus,  surnamed 
Christ,’  of  verse  i6  to  which  it  refers  back  and  which 
it  takes  up  and  repeats.  For  that  the  ‘ Christ  ’ in  this 
phrase  is  a simple  proper  name  is  not  only  suggested 
by  the  absence  of  the  article  with  it,  but  is  indicated 
by  the  currency  of  a similar  mode  of  speech  in  the 
case  of  like  instances  of  double  names.®  It  appears 
then  that  the  addition,  “ surnamed  Christ,”  is  intended 
in  this  passage  as  a formal  identification  of  the  par- 

*So,  for  example,  Weiss,  in  his  reworking  of  Meyer.  He  supposes 
that  the  summary  here  is  not  merely  a mnemonic  device,  but  rests  on  a 
deeply-laid  symbolism.  There  were  fourteen  generations  from  Abra- 
ham to  the  establishment  of  the  kingdom;  and  fourteen  more  from  its 
establishment  to  its  loss:  should  there  not  be  just  fourteen  more  from 
its  destruction  to  its  re-establishment  in  the  Messiah  ? “ It  is  accord- 

ingly,” he  says,  “ also  beyond  dispute  that  we  should  translate — ‘ up  to 
the  Messiah.’”  Similarly  (he  says)  Kubel  and  Nosgen.  This  carries 
with  it  the  appellative  sense  in  and  27^’^. 

5Cf.  Dalman  {Words,  303):  “In  Mt  27i7>22  pilate  uses  the  ex- 
pression "Ifjffou?  6 Xsyofxsvoq  Xpi(Tr6<;.  That  is  not  intended  to  mean 
‘ Jesus,  who  is  supposed  to  be  the  Messiah,’  but  with  the  usual  sense  of 
this  idiom,  ‘ Jesus  surnamed  Christ.’  ” The  same  form  is  seen  in  Mt 
ii®,  and  in  6 Xeyofievot^  IUrpoi;  4^®  lo^.  Cf.  Meyer’s  note  on 

ii®,  where  he  remarks  that  S Xeyopevof  expresses  neither  doubt,  nor 
assurance,  but  means  simply  <vjho  hears  the  name  of  Christ  (4^®  lo^ 
27!'^)  ; for  this  name,  which  became  His  from  the  official  designation, 
was  the  distinctive  name  of  this  Jesus.”  Exact  parallels  to  “ Jesus  sur- 
named Christ”  (Mt  i^®  27^^’--)  occur  in  N.  T.  only  at  Mt  4^®  lo^,  “ Si- 
mon surnamed  Peter”;  Jno  ii^®  20^^  21^,  “Thomas  surnamed  Didy- 
mus”;  Col  4^^  “Jesus  surnamed  Justus.”  Its  equivalent  in  such  forms 
as  “a  man  named”  (Mt  9®  26®>i^  27I®,  Mk  15^  Lk  22^^),  or  a “city 
called”  (Mt  2-^,  Jno  4®  19^^) » or  “a  place  called”  (Mt  26®®  27®®, 

Jno  5®,  Acts  3®  6®)  are  not  infrequent. 


62 


The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

ticular  Jesus  in  question;®  and  the  employment  of 
“ Christ  ” instead  of  “ Jesus  ” in  the  subsequent  sum- 
mary (verse  17)  is  perhaps  best  explained  in  the  in- 
terests of  this  clearness  of  designation,  the  article 
accompanying  it  having  the  force  of  “ the  aforesaid 
Christ.” 

Matthew  thus  notifies  us  at  the  beginning  of  his 
narrative  that  the  ‘ Jesus  ’ with  whom  he  is  to  deal 
has  another  name,  to  wit,  ‘ Christ  ’ 

Why  so  and  so  prepares  the  way  for  an 

Seldom  Used  ^ , r 1 • u 

occasional  employment  or  this  other 

name  ii^).  Our  only  surprise  is  that  he  employs 
it  so  seldom.  The  account  to  be  given  of  this  is  prob- 
ably that,  after  all,  in  the  circles  for  which  Matthew 
wrote,  this  ‘ Jesus  ’ had  become  so  unapproachably  the 
only  ‘ Jesus  ’ who  would  come  to  mind  on  the  mention 
of  the  name,  that  the  more  distinctive  surname  ‘ Christ  ’ 
was  not  needed  in  speaking  of  Him  to  secure  His 
identification;  it  is  employed,  therefore,  only  when 
some  suggestion  of  His  Messiahship  was  intruding 
itself  upon  the  mind,  as  is  the  case  certainly  at  ii^’^ 
and  no  doubt  also  at  and  we  may  add  equally  so 

® So  also  Fritzsche,  in  loc.,  who  translates:  “Jesus,  whose  cognomen 
is  Christ.”  “ Thus,”  he  continues,  “ Jesus  is  by  these  words  discrimi- 
nated from  other  men  of  the  same  name,  and  Xpi(Tr6<;  does  not  declare 
Him  Messiah,  but  as  in  verse  is  His  name.”  According  to  this  in- 
terpretation, he  would  have  passages  of  similar  character  explained, 
e.g.  Mt  271^  22]  Jesus  quern  Christi  nomine  ornant*’ — and  so 

Mk  15^,  Mt  26^^  9^  26^»36  2733^  jno  1912,17^  Acts  32,  Eph  2^^,  Simi- 
larly Keil,  on  i^®. 

Cf.  Zahn,  in  loc.:  “That  Matthew,  who  elsewhere  in  the  narra- 
tive statedly  speaks  of  Jesus  by  His  proper  name,  writes  rou  Xpcffzou 
here  instead,  is  explained  just  as  in  from  his  purpose  to  give  brief 
and  emphatic  expression  to  the  fact  that  the  deeds  which  are  spoken  of 
indicate  Him  as  the  Messiah.” 


The  Designations  in  Matthew  63 

in  (cf.  “the  Son  of  David”),  and  16“^  (cf.  v. 
20),  where  the  compound  ‘ Jesus  Christ  ’ occurs.  This 
is  to  recognize,  of  course,  that  the  surname  ‘Christ’ 
was  the  name  of  dignity  as  distinguished  from  the 
simple  name  of  designation,  and  preserved,  even  when 
employed  as  a proper  name,  its  implications  of  Mes- 
siahship;  but  this  is  in  any  event  a matter  of  course 
and  should  not  be  confounded  with  the  question  of  its 
appellative  use.  The  employment  of  the  term  ‘ Christ  ’ 
as  a proper  name  of  Jesus  so  far  from  losing  sight  of 
His  claim  to  Messiahship,  accordingly,  bears  witness  to 
so  complete  an  acquiescence  in  that  claim  on  the  part  of 
the  community  in  which  this  usage  of  the  term  was  cur- 
rent, that  the  very  official  designation  was  conceived  as 
His  peculiar  property  and  His  proper  designation  (cf. 
2^17-22)  .8  sparingness  of  Matthew’s  employment 

of  it,  on  the  other  hand,  manifests  how  little  our  Lord’s 
dignity  as  Messiah  needed  to  be  insisted  on  in  the 
circles  for  which  Matthew  wrote,  and  how  fully  the 
simple  name  ‘ Jesus  ’ could  convey  to  the  readers  all 
that  was  wrapped  up  in  His  personality. 

Besides  this  sparing  use  of  ‘ Jesus  Christ  * and 
‘ Christ,’  then,  Matthew  makes  use  in  his  own  person 

Jesus*  of  no  other  designation  in  speaking  of 

Popular  our  Lord  than  the  simple  ‘ Jesus,’  al- 

Name  though  on  three  occasions  he  adduces 

with  reference  to  Him  designations  which  he  finds  in 
the  prophets:  ‘Immanuel’  ‘Lord’  (3^),  ‘the 

Nazarene  ’ (2^^).  The  implications  of  the  first  two 

® The  climax  of  this  development  was  reached,  of  course,  when  the 
followers  of  Jesus  were  called  simply  “ Christians  ” — which  occurred 
first,  we  are  told,  at  Antioch  (Acts  Cf.  art.  “Christian”  in 

Hastings’  Diet,  of  the  Bible. 


64  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

of  these  we  may  leave  for  later  reference.  The  last 
bears  witness  to  the  fact  that  Jesus  was  currently 
known  by  His  contemporaries  as  “ a Nazarene,”  that 
is  to  say,  that  His  ordinary  distinctive  designation 
among  the  people  in  the  midst  of  whom  His  ministry 
was  passed  would  be,  ‘ Jesus  the  Nazarene,’  as  the 
maid,  indeed,  is  recorded  to  have  spoken  of  Him  in 
the  court  of  the  high  priest  (26^^).  This  exact  desig- 
nation, however,  does  not  elsewhere  occur  in  Matthew’s 
narrative,  although  its  broader  equivalent,  from  the 
(Standpoint  of  a Jerusalemite,  ‘ Jesus  the  Galilean,’  is 
represented  as  employed  by  the  companion  maid  (26®^), 
and  the  multitude  seeking  to  do  Him  honor  is  rep- 
resented as  describing  Him  with  great  fulness  as  “ the 
prophet  Jesus  from  Nazareth  of  Galilee  ” (21^^).  The 
simple  ‘ Jesus,’  as  has  been  already  pointed  out.  He 
is  not  represented  as  called,  except  by  the  angel  an- 
nouncing His  birth  (i“^),  but  Pilate  is  quoted  as  des- 
ignating Him  by  His  full  name,  “ Jesus,  surnamed 
Christ”  (27^'^’^^),  and  we  are  told  that  there  was  set 
over  His  head  on  the  cross  the  legend,  “ This  is  Jesus, 
the  King  of  the  Jews”  (27^^).  In  both  instances  the 
adjunct  is,  no  doubt,  scornful,  though  it  is  less  ob- 
viously so  on  Pilate’s  lips  than  in  the  inscription  on 
the  cross. 

The  employment  by  Pilate  of  the  full  name,  ‘ Jesus, 
surnamed  Christ,’  seems  to  bear  witness  that  already 
Early  Use  of  before  Jesus’  death  He  had  been  so  pre- 
‘ Christ  ’ as  a vailingly  Spoken  of  as  the  Messiah  that 
Proper  Name  official  designation  might  seem  to 

have  become  part  of  His  proper  name.  The  alterna- 
tives are  to  suppose  that  Matthew  does  not  report  the 
exact  words  of  Pilate,  who  may  be  thought  rather  to 


The  Designations  in  Matthew  65 

have  used  the  phrase  appearing  in  the  parallel  passage 
in  Mark — “ the  King  of  the  Jews  or  else  that  the 
term  Christ  is  employed  here  in  its  full  official  sense 
as  an  appellative, — “ Jesus  who  is  commonly  called 
the  Christ.”^®  The  former,  however,  is  a purely  gratui- 
tous suggestion;  (Mark  and  Matthew  do  not  contra- 
^(^dict  but  supplement  one  another.  And  the  latter  seems 
'"^(not  quite  consonant  with  the  language  used.  There 
seems,  moreover,  really  no  reason  why  we  may  not 
suppose  Pilate  to  have  caught  the  term  “ Christ  ” as 
applied  to  Jesus,  and  to  have  understood  it  as  a proper 
name,  especially  when  we  are  expressly  told  by  Luke 
(23^)  that  the  accusation  which  was  lodged  against 
Him  took  the  form  that  He  had  proclaimed  Himself 
to  be  “ Christ,  a King.”  Nor,  indeed,  does  there  seem 
any  compelling  reason  why  it  may  not  already  have 
been  employed  of  Jesus  by  His  followers  sufficiently 
constantly  to  have  begun  to  be  attached  to  Him  as  at 
least  a quasi-proper  name  (cf.  ii^).  On  heathen  ears, 
as  we  know,  the  term  “ Christ  ” was  apt  to  strike  as 
a proper  name  and,  in  any  event,  the  title  ‘ Christ  ’ 
began  very  early,  at  least  in  Christian  circles,  to  be 
^ appropriated  to  Jesus  in  much  the  connotation  of  a 
'.-proper  name,  because  men  did  not  wait  for  His  death 
"^before  they  began  to  hope  it  would  be  He  who  should 
deliver  Israel.^^  If  we  may  suppose,  as  in  any  event 
we  must,  that  even  as  a proper  name,  or  as  a quasi- 
proper name,  there  clung  to  the  term  ‘ Christ  ’ a sense 
of  its  honorific  character,  it  would  appear  quite  possible 

® So  Dalman. 

10  So  e.g.  Alexander  and  Weiss. 

Suetonius,  Chresto  impulsore,”  and  note  Acts 

12  Lk  2421. 


66 


The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

that  Pilate,  “ knowing  that  it  was  from  envy  that  they 
had  delivered  Him  up,”  meant  by  giving  Jesus  His 
full  and  evidently  honorific  name,  to  play  upon  the 
multitude,  that  they  should  demand  “ Jesus,  surnamed 
Christ,”  rather  than  Barabbasd® 

Like  Mark,  Matthew  represents  Jesus  as  customarily 
addressed  by  the  simple  current  honorific  titles.  The 
Simple  actual  Aramaic  form,  ‘ Rabbi,’  how- 
Honorific  ever,  oddly  enough,  is  retained  only  in 
Addresses  repeating  the  only  two  remarks  recorded 
in  Matthew’s  narrative  as  made  to  the  Lord  by  Judas 
Iscariot  (26^^’^®).^*  Its  usual  Greek  rendering, 

‘Teacher’  {dcddaxale)  ^ also  takes  a relatively  infe- 
rior place  in  Matthew,  being  largely  supplanted  by 
the  more  Greek  ‘ Lord  ’ ( ^'\oce  ) , perhaps  as  the 

representative  of  the  Aramaic  Mdri}^  A tendency 
seems  even  observable  to  reserve  ‘Teacher’  {dcdda- 
xaXe  ) for  the  non-committal,  respectful  address  of 
those  who  were  not  followers  of  Jesus  (12^®  22^®’^^’^®; 
9I1  19^®).  It  is  employed,  however,  in 

If  the  reading  ‘ Jesus  Barabbas  ’ in  Mt  27131'^  could  be  accepted, 
it  would  supply  a reason  why  Pilate  should  have  employed  the  full 
name  ‘Jesus  surnamed  Christ.’  He  would  have  wished  to  ascertain 
which  Jesus  the  people  wanted.  But  see  A.  Plummer  in  Hastings’ 
DicL  of  the  Bible,  art.  ‘Barabbas’  (i.  245). 

1^  The  contrast  between  the  address  of  the  other  disciples,  “ Is  it  I, 
Lord  ( xbpie.  ) ?”  (verse  22),  and  that  of  Judas,  “Is  it  I,  Rabbi?”  is 
marked.  It  imports  that  Judas,  though  among  our  Lord’s  closest  fol- 
lowers, was  not  of  them:  they  recognize  Him  as  their  Lord,  he  only  as 
his  teacher.  But  it  remains  obscure  why  in  the  case  of  Judas  only 
Matthew  uses  the  Aramaic  “ Rabbi,”  rather  than,  as  in  other  cases 
of  similar  contrast,  the  current  Greek  form,  diddffxaXe. 

13  Wellhausen  on  Mt  23'^'i3  (p.  117)  remarks:  “We  observe  that  the 
address  or  diddaxaXe  is  claimed  here  for  Jesus  and  for  Him 

alone,  whereas  elsewhere  In  Matthew  and  Luke  it  is  too  low  for  Him 
and  is  replaced  hy  xopie  (mari).” 


N \v 


The  Designations  in  Matthew  67 

the  case  of  a scribe  who  came  to  Jesus  and  declared 
his  purpose  to  become  His  constant  follower  (8^®,  cf. 
19^®).  And  our  Lord  places  it  on  His  disciples’  lips 
when  He  instructs  them  to  “ go  into  the  city  to  such 
a man,  and  say  unto  him,  The  Teacher  says.  My  time 
is  at  hand;  I keep  the  passover  with  my  disciples  at 
thy  house”  (26^®).  Similarly  in  didactic  statements 
He  refers  to  the  relation  between  Him  and 

His  followers  as  well  under  the  terms  of  ‘ Teacher  and 
disciple  ’ as  under  those  of  ‘ servant  and  Lord,’  ‘ the 
Householder  and  the  household  ’ : and  forbids  His  fol- 
lowers to  be  called  ‘ Rabbi,’  because  He  alone  is  their 
‘ Teacher,’  as  pointedly  as  He  forbids  them  to  be  called 
‘ guides,’  because  He,  the  Christ,  alone  is  their  ‘ Guide  ’ 
(23^-^^). 

Two  new  terms  are  brought  before  us  in  these  last- 
quoted  declarations, — ‘ House-master  ’ Mt 

10^^  24^^;  cf.  Mk  13^^)  and  ‘Guide’  {xad7]yr^rij<7-, 
23^^  only  in  N.  T.)  ; both  of  which  seem  to  have  higher 
implications  than  ‘Teacher’  {dcdd(TxaXo(:)  ^ although 
both  are  placed  in  the  closest  connection  with  it  as 
its  practical  synonyms  23^’^^).  ‘Guide’ 

{^adrjT^Tij^)  occurs  indeed  nowhere  elsed®  and  we 
can  say  of  it  only  that  our  Lord  chose  it  as  one  of 

^®The  source  of  the  term  xadrjYi^TTj^  has  been  much  discussed.  It 
seems  to  have  been  in  use  in  the  Greek  philosophical  schools  in  the 
sense  of  Master,  Teacher  (see  Wettstein  in  loc.).  The  Hebraists 
(Wunsche,  Delitzsch,  Salkinson)  are  inclined  to  seek  for  it  an  Aramaic 
original,  miD  (cf.  Holtzmann,  Hand-Corn.,  251):  but  on  this  see 
Dalman,  W ords,  pp.  335-340.  It  is  a deeper  question  whether  it  may 
not  be  a Messianic  title  in  accordance  with  the  preservation  of  such  a 
designation — ^ Hathahy  ‘the  Guide’ — among  the  Samaritans:  see  Stan- 
ton, Jevnsh  and  Christian  Messiah,  127.  There  is  no  rational  ground 
for  simply  casting  the  verse  out  of  Matthew  (Blass,  Wellhausen,  Holtz- 
mann, even  Dalman). 


68  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

the  designations  which  expressed  His  exclusive  rela- 
tion to  His  disciples.  He  was  their  only  Teacher, 
Guide,  Master  and  Lord.  But  ‘ House-master  ’ 
(ocxod£(77r6r/^(:)  seems  to  have  been  rather  a favorite 
figurative  expression  with  Him,  to  set 
t^e^^Hou^e  forth  His  relation  to  His  disciples, 
whether  in  didactic  or  in  parabolic  state- 
ment. In  one  of  His  parables,  indeed,  it  is  not 
He  who  is  the  ‘ H^use-master  ’ , but 

God,^"^  while  He  is  God’s  Son  and  Heir  (21^^  ) 

in  distinction  from  the  slaves  which  make  up  other- 
wise the  household;  and  the  uniqueness  of  His  rela- 
tion to  the  Father  as  His  Son  is  thrown  up  into  the 
strongest  light,  and  is  further  emphasized  in  the 
application,  where  Jesus  speaks  of  Himself  as  the 
chief  cornerstone  on  which  the  Kingdom  of  God 
is  built  (verse  42)  and  on  their  relation  to  which 
the  destinies  of  men  hang  (verse  44).  In  other 
parables,  however  (13“^  etseq.,  etseq.^^  ‘House- 
master ’ (oho^eanoTT]^')  is  Jesus  Himself,  and  the  func- 
tions that  are  ascribed  to  Him  as  such  have  especial 
reference  to  the  destinies  of  men.  As  the  ‘ House- 
master’ {olxodzar.or/]^)  He  distributes  to  men  the  rewards 
of  their  labors  in  accordance  with  His  own  will,  doing 
as  He  will  with  His  own  (20^^)  : and  bears  with  the 
tares  in  the  field  in  which  He  has  sown  good  corn  until 
the  time  of  harvest  shall  come,  when  He  will  send  the 
reapers — who  are  “ His  Angels  ” — to  gather  them  out 
and  burn  them  with  fire  (13^^  ^ 

word,  to  the  ‘ House-master ’(o^xo^£<T;r6r;yc) , who  is  ex- 


In  13*^2  the  ohodsarzoTTj^;  is  “every  scribe  who  has  been  made 
a disciple  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven.”  And  in  24^2  the  oixodeffTzoTT^^ 
is  the  watching  follower  on  earth  who  waits  for  His  coming. 


The  Designations  in  Matthew  69 

pressly  identified  with  ‘the  Son  of  Man’  (13^®)  the 
inalienably  divine  function  of  Judge  of  the  earth  is 
assigned,  and  it  is  with  this  high  connotation  in  His 
mind  that  He  speaks  of  Himself  as  such,  over  against 
His  “ domestics,”  when  He  warns  them  not  to  expect 
better  treatment  at  the  hands  of  men  than  He  has  re- 
ceived (10^^).  The  implications  of  sovereignty  inherent 
in  the  term  run  up  in  its  application  therefore  into  the 
sovereignty  of  God : as  ‘ House-master  ’ {ohodeanozy]^) , 
Jesus  is  pictured  as  our  divine  Lordd® 

If  ‘Teacher’  {dtddaxale)  somewhat  sinks  in  value 
as  an  honorific  form  of  address  in  Matthew  as 
, , compared  with  Mark,  its  more  Greek 

anAddre^  equivalent,  ‘Lord’  on  the 

other  hand,  is  more  frequently  and  va- 
riously employed  by  Matthew  than  by  Markd^  It 

On  the  meaning  of  olxods(nz6rrj<s  see  T.  D.  Woolsey,  Bibliotheca 
Sacra,  July,  i86i,  p.  599.  means  “the  absolute  owner  of 

things  . . . as  . . . de(nt6rf)(s  oixca?,  the  master  of  a house  or 

household;  whence  the  oixode<n:6rrj<s  of  the  sacred  writers.”  Cf. 
Trench,  Synonyms  of  N.  T.,  xxviii.,  p.  91. 

On  the  use  of  xopis  in  Matthew  and  its  relations  to  other  forms  of 
address,  cf.  Zahn,  on  Mt.  7-1  (p.  315,  note  235).  Kupie,  he  tells  us, 
is  employed  “ as  an  address  to  Jesus  on  the  part  of  people  who  still 
stood  at  a distance  from  Jesus,  commonly  in  seeking  help  from  Him, 
in  Mt  928  (v.  27,  Son  of  David),  1522,27  along 

with  Son  of  David),  17^^  jno  411,15,19,49  ^7  534  ^36,38.  on  the 

part  of  male  and  female  disciples  at  Mt  82i>2s  1428,30  1522  1^4  ig2i 
2622,  Jno  668  „3,12,21,27,32,34,39  136,9,25,86  145,8,22.  Although  the 

disciples  of  Jesus  also  address  Him  by  diddaxals:  (Jno  13^6-16^  of. 
io24;  examples:  Mk  468  988  13I.  pa^^i,  Mk  9®  ii2i,  Jno  188,49  481  ^2 
II®),  the  distinction  is,  however,  to  be  noted  that  this  address  is  used 
also  by  His  opponents,  and  especially  by  the  scribes  (in  Mt  8^®  no  doubt 
by  a friendly  scribe  in  approaching  Him,  but  still  one  who  did  not 
become  a disciple,  in  clear  distinction  from  8^1,  cf.  12®®  19I®  22^6*24, 3« 
Jno  32:  and  by  Judas,  Mt  2625,49),  ^hile  on  the  other  hand  xbpteis 
never  so  used,  since  from  the  very  nature  of  the  case  it  is  the  address 


70  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

appears  upon  the  lips  alike  of  applicants  for  our  Lord’s 
mercy,  whether  Jewish  (8^  9^^  17^^  or  heathen 

(86,8  J ^22,25  1^27^^  q£  discipleS  (8^^’^^  1^28,30 

1 522  j,^4  jg2i  26^^)  ; but  never  on  the  lips  of  one  who 
Is  not  in  some  sense  a follower  of  Jesus,  either  as 
suitor  for  His  grace  or  as  His  professed  disciple. 
‘ Lord  ’ ( ''iopce ) is  accordingly  a higher  mode  of 
designation  in  Matthew  than  ‘Teacher’  (^dcddaxah), 
and  imports  a closer  bond  of  connection  with  Jesus 
and  a more  profound  and  operative  recognition  of 
His  authority.  It  occurs  some  twenty-one  times^°  as 
a form  of  address  to  Jesus,  and,  besides  once  as  an 
address  to  God  (ii“^),  only  a single  time  (to  Pilate, 
27^^),  outside  of  parables,  as  an  address  to  anyone 
else.  Even  in  its  parabolic  use,  indeed,  its  reference 
is  always  (except  21^^  only)  either  to  God  ( 1 325, [26] ,27,31 
1 832,34  2 j42^  ^24^  qj.  Jesus  pictured  in  positions  of 

supreme  authority  ([13^^]  20^ 


of  the  servant  to  his  master  and  ruler,  among  the  Orientals  and  later 
the  Hellenists  and  after  Domitian  also  the  Romans  the  address  of 
subjects  to  governors,  occasionally  also  of  the  son  to  the  father  (e.g. 
Berlin  Aegypt.  Ur  hind.  8i6,  i.  28,  821,  i)  and  always  an  honorific 
expression  of  subjection  to  those  addressed  (cf.  Mt  22*4  saq.)^  or  at  least 
of  dependence  upon  them  at  the  moment.  Thus  Pilate  Is  so  addressed 
by  the  Sanhedrin  (Mt  27®^),  but  also  Philip  by  the  Greeks  (Jno  la^i), 
the  gardener  by  the  Magdalen  (Jno  2q4^),  in  each  case  in  preferring 
a request.”  When  Zahn  says  (on  the  same  page)  that  “ it  was  only 
after  Jesus’  death  ” that  xupis  “ took  on  in  the  Christian  community  a 
more  precise  and  richer  content,”  he  seems  not  to  be  bearing  In  mind 
the  Implications  of  such  passages  as  21  ^ 24^2  2243-45^  and  even 
itself,  though  Zahn  explains  that  passage  otherwise.  It  is  clear  from 
even  21^  alone  that  Jesus  was  constantly  called  ‘Lord’  and  that  in  a 
very  high  connotation. 

20  32,6,8,21,25  ^28  1428,30  1525,27  i622  174,15  Ig21  2Q30.33  2622,  cf. 
25.37,44  721,21.  Also  1522  2q31. 


The  Designations  in  Matthew  71 

[20],21.21,[22].23.23.[24],26^  cf.  |3g 

course,  that  this  supreme  authority  is  explicit  in  every 
case  of  the  actual  use  of  the  term:  in  a number  of 
instances  the  term  may  express  no  more  than  high 
respect  and  a general  recognition  of  authority,  and  in 
several  instances  it  is  represented  in  parallel  passages  in 
the  other  evangelists  by  one  or  another  of  its  lower 
synonyms.^^  But  its  tendency  is  distinctly  upwards; 
and  no  reader  can  fail  to  catch  a very  high  note  in  its 
repeated  use,  or  can  feel  surprise  when  it  is  observed 
to  be  connected  usually  with  at  least  Messianic  impli- 
'cations  (15^^  ^21, 21^  jg  found  occasionally 

to  be  suggestive  of  something  even  higher 
Nor  will  he  be  surprised  to  perceive  that  in  its  highest 
connotation  it  appears  characteristically  upon  the  lips 
of  our  Lord  Himself,  who  represents  men  as  seeking 
to  enter  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  by  crying  to  Him 
‘Lord,  Lord’  (7"^),  and  as  addressing  Him  on  the 
Day  of  Judgment  as  He  sits  King  on  the  throne  of 
His  glory  by  the  appropriate  title  of  ‘ Lord  ’ (25^^’^^). 
In  the  latter  case,  of  course,  nothing  is  lacking  of  rec- 
' ognition  of  divine  majesty  itself : this  ‘ Lord  ’ is  not 
only  “ the  Son  of  Man  ” come  in  His  glory  with  all 
Xthe  angels  with  Llim  (verse  31),  ‘the  King’  (verses 
34,  40)  seated  on  the  throne  of  His  majesty  (verse 
31),  but  ‘the  Judge  of  all  the  earth,’  distributing  to 
each  man  his  eternal  destiny,  according  to  the  relation 
in  which  each  stands  to  His  own  person. 

It  is  clear  enough  from  passages  like  these  that 


Mk  9^  (17^)  ; pal^iSo'^t  Mk  ; 3idd(Txa?<e  Lk 

488  (g25)^  Mk  9^^  Lk  938  (1715);  Iruavara  Lk  8^4  (825)  (174). 


72  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

our  Lord  is  represented  by  Matthew  as  conceiving 
His  relation  to  His  followers  as  very 
an  Appellat^n  properly  expressed  by  the  term  ‘ Lord.’ 
But  the  appellative  use  of  the  term  of 
Jesus  is  nevertheless  not  common  In  Matthew.  No 
;\^more  in  Matthew  than  In  Mark  Is  Jesus  spoken  of  by  the 
evangelist  himself  or  represented  as  freely  spoken  of  by 
others  as  ‘ the  Lord.’  Even  In  the  words  of  the  angel 
at  the  tomb,  “ Come,  see  the  place  where  the  Lord 
lay”  (28®),  the  words  “the  Lord”  are  probably 
not  genuine.  Nevertheless,  on  the  Ups  of  our  Lord 
Himself  the  appellative  use  of  the  term  does  occur, 
and  that  In  no  low  significance.  He  declares  Himself 
as  ‘ the  Son  of  Man  ’ to  be  ‘ Lord  of  the  Sabbath  ’ 
(12®).  He  Instructs  His  disciples  In  requisitioning 
the  ass  and  her  colt  for  His  formal  entry  Into  Jeru- 
salem to  reply  to  all  challengers  with  the  simple  words, 
“The  Lord  has  need  of  them”  (21^), — and  the  nar- 
rator connects  this  Instruction  with  the  fulfillment  of 
the  prophecy  that  the  King  of  Zion  shall  enter  It  “ rid- 
ing upon  an  ass,  and  upon  a colt,  the  foal  of  an  ass  ” 
(verse  5).  He  warns  His  followers  that  as  they  know 
not  on  what  day  ‘their  Lord’  cometh  (24^“), — that 
Lord  who  Is  the  Son  of  Man,  who  Is  to  come  In  glory 
for  the  judgment  of  the  world  (verse  44), — they  are 
to  preserve  a constant  attitude  of  watchfulness.  And 
in  accordance  with  these  declarations  He  explains  that 
though  David’s  son.  He,  the  Christ,  Is  much  more  than 
David’s  son, — as  David  himself  In  the  Spirit  recog- 
nized,— even  David’s  ‘Lord’  (22^^’^®),  and  that,  a 
Lord  who  sits  on  the  right  hand  of  the  Lord  who  Is 
Jehovah.  It  Is  In  full  harmony  with  these  definitions 
of  His  Lordship  cited  from  the  Lord’s  own  lips  that 


The  Designations  in  Matthew 


73 


the  evangelist  himself  (3^)  applies  to  Him  the  term 
‘ Lord  ’ in  that  prophecy  of  Isaiah,  in  which  there  is 
promised  “ a voice  of  one  crying  in  the  wilderness, 
Make  ye  ready  the  way  of  the  Lord,”  Jehovah;  thus 
identifying  His  coming  with  the  promised  advent  of 
Jehovah  and  His  person  with  Jehovah  who  was  to 
come.  However  little  therefore  the  mere  form  of 
f address  ‘ Lord  ’ as  applied  to  Christ  may  necessarily 
imply  in  Him  a superhuman  dignity,  it  is  clear  that 
the  actual  Lordship  accredited  to  Him  by  Matthew, 
and  by  Himself  as  reported  by  Matthew,  stretches 
above  all  human  claims. 

We  cannot  fail  to  have  observed,  as  we  have  con- 
templated these  honorific  addresses  and  titles  accorded 
to  our  Lord,  that  it  is  His  Messianic 
dignity  which  proximately  underlies 
them  all.  And  we  shall  be  prepared  by 
this  observation  to  note  that  with  Matthew  as  with 
Mark,  the  presentation  of  Him  as  the  promised  Mes- 
siah belongs  among  the  primary  ends  of  the  evan- 
gelist, and  that  in  the  process  of  this  presentation  a 
considerable  number  of  Messianic  titles  are  ascribed 
to  Him.  Matthew  bears  witness,  like  Mark,  to  be 
( sure,  that  the  people  recognized  in  Him  a prophet 
(21^6  16^^)  and  that  Jesus  Himself  was  far  from 

repelling  this  attribution  (13^^);  but  little  stress  is 
laid  upon  this  and  it  may  be  easily  understood  that 
prophetic  powers  were  conceived  by  Matthew,  as  by 
Mark,  to  be  included  in  His  Messianic  endowment.  We 
have  seen  that  he  himself  calls  Jesus  in  the  formal 
opening  of  his  Gospel  (i^),  at  the  beginning  of  the 
narrative  proper  and  at  the  new  beginning 

marked  by  His  open  proclamation  of  His  dignity 


74 


The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

(i6^^),  by  the  solemn  compound  name  of  ‘Jesus 
Christ,’  thus  carefully  announcing  His  Messianic 
claims  as  governing  the  very  frame-work  of  his  Gos- 
pel. And  we  have  seen  him  following  up  this  cere- 
monious use  of  the  full  name  ‘ Jesus  Christ  ’ in  the 
opening  of  the  Gospel,  by  explaining  the  term  ‘ Christ,’ 
which  forms  a part  of  it,  as  a surname  of  Jesus  due  to 
the  recognition  of  Him  as  the  Messiah  on  which 

account  He  forms  the  natural  termination  of  the  gen- 
ealogy begun  in  Abraham  and  by  implying 

that  His  works  marked  Him  out  as  the  Messiah  ( 1 1^) , 
so  that  the  imprisoned  John,  hearing  of  them,  was 
impelled  to  inquire  into  their  meaning.  How  wide- 
spread the  knowledge  of  His  Messianic  claims  was  is 
witnessed  by  the  adjuration  of  the  high  priest  at  His 
trial,  “ I adjure  thee  by  the  living  God,  that  thou 
tell  us  whether  thou  be  the  Christ”  (26®^),  and  the 
bitter  sport  His  judges  made  of  Him  (26®®)  as  they 
smote  Him  and  demanded,  “ Tell  us,  Christ,  who 
smote  thee.” 

Evidently  our  Lord’s  claim  to  the  Messianic  dig- 
nity is  intended  to  be  represented  as  having  been 

Our  Lord’s  clear,  constant  and  emphatic:  so  a part 
Own  Messianic  of  Himself  in  the  popular  understand- 
Claims  heathen  judge  already  con- 

ceived the  title  ‘ Christ’  as  only  His  surname  (27^'^’“^ 
cf.  ii^).  And  indeed  Matthew’s  narrative  leaves  us 
in  no  uncertainty  that  Jesus  had  claimed  this  title  for 
Himself  from  His  earliest  ministry.  When  the  Bap- 
tist, having  heard  of  the  works  He  did,  sent  from  his 
prison  to  ask  Him  whether  He  was  ‘ the  Coming  One  ’ 
(ii^).  He  replied  with  no  doubtful  indication  that  Lie 
was  indeed  ‘the  Christ’  When  Peter  (16^®)  in  his 


The  Designations  in  Matthew  75 

great  confession  declared  Him  ‘‘  the  Christ,  the  Son 
of  the  living  God,”  Jesus  pronounced  the  declaration 
a revelation  from  heaven  (16^’^),  and  only  charged 
His  disciples  not  as  yet  to  reveal  the  fact  that  He  was 
“the  Christ”  (i6“^).  It  was  evidently  to  elevate  the 
conception  current  as  to  the  Christ  whom  He  repre- 
sented Himself  as  being  that  He  put  to  His  opponents 
the  searching  question,  how  could  the  Christ  be  merely 
'David’s  son,  when  David  himself,  in  the  Spirit,  spoke 
of  Him  as  his  Lord — a Lord  seated  on  the  right  hand 
of  God  (22^^'^®).  Because  He  was,  as  ‘the  Christ,’ 
the  sole  ‘ Guide  ’ to  His  followers.  He  would  not  have 
them  be  called  guides,  even  as  they  should  put  no 
earthly  person  in  the  place  of  their  one  Father  in 
heaven  (23^®).  The  name  ‘the  Christ,’  He  explained 
1(24^),  was  exclusively  His  own,  and  it  would  be  a 
usurpation,  therefore,  which  could  only  lead  astray,  if 
others  should  come  “ in  the  strength  of  His  name,  say- 
ing ” — therefore  falsely, — “ I am  the  Christ.”  When 
the  high  priest  adjured  Him  to  tell  whether  He  were 
the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God”  (26^^)  He,  accordingly, 
^ solemnly  accepted  the  title  and  explained  that  in  ac- 
cepting it  He  took  it  in  its  highest  connotation  (26®^) 

< — in  so  high  a connotation  indeed  that  His  judges 
promptly  pronounced  what  He  had  spoken  blasphemy. 
It  is,  therefore,  only  in  imitation  of  Jesus  Himself  that 
Matthew  treats  the  designation  of  ‘ the  Christ  ’ as 
Jesus’  peculiar  property  and — though  of  course  with- 
out emptying  it  of  its  lofty  connotation — deals  with  it  as 
His  proper  name  by  which  He  might  be  currently  des- 
ignated. 

The  ascription  of  the  title  ‘ Christ’  to  Jesus  carries 
with  it  naturally  certain  other  Messianic  titles  which 


76  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

are  involved  in  it.  The  simplest  of  these  is  ‘ the 
The  Simple  Coming  One,’  based  apparently  on 
Messianic  Mai  3^  or  Ps  40^  or  1 1 8^®,  and  itself  the 
Designations  b^sis  of  a customary  method  of  pregnant 
speech  of  the  Messiah  as  “ coming.’”^*^  This  designa- 
tion is  applied  to  Jesus  in  the  question  of  the  Baptist — 
“ Art  thou  the  Coming  One,  or  do  we  look  for  an- 
other? ” ( 1 1^) , which  Matthew  records  as  having  been 
called  out  by  the  report  brought  the  Baptist  of  the 
“ works  of  Christ  ” — using  the  name  of  ‘ Christ  ’ here 
instead  of  ‘ Jesus,’  contrary  to  his  custom,  apparently 
under  the  influence  of  this  train  of  thought.  And  the 
evangelist  records  in  accordance  with  this  designation 
a series  of  sayings  of  our  Lord  in  which  He  speaks 
pregnantly  of  having  “come”  (5^^  9^^  10^^  20^®,  cf. 

22  See  the  passages  carefully  enumerated  in  Thayer-Grimm,  sub  voc. 
epyoixai^  I.  i a.  /?.  (pp.  250-1  near  top).  Dr.  Edersheim,  Life,  etc.,  i. 
668,  says:  “The  designation,  ‘the  Coming  One’  {habba),  though  a 
most  truthful  expression  of  Jewish  expectations,  was  not  one  ordinarily 
used  of  the  Messiah.  But  it  was  invariably  used  with  reference  to 
the  Messianic  age  . . .”  Dr.  Edersheim  Is  speaking,  of  course,  of 

what  Is  to  be  garnered  from  extant  Jewish  writings.  The  employment 
of  the  phrase  in  Mt  ii^  and  Lk  Is  sufficient  proof  that  It  bore 
among  the  Jews  of  the  day  “ a technical  sense  ” as  a title  of  the  Mes- 
siah (cf.  Westcott  on  Jno  i^^).  With  reference  to  the  appearance  of 
this  designation  precisely  here,  Zahn  {in  loc.)  remarks:  “While  Mat- 
thew expresses  the  dignity,  as  the  possessor  of  which  Jesus  has  mani- 
fested Himself  by  means  of  His  works  heretofore  described,  by  the 
long  established  title  of  6 Xpi<TTd<;  (cf.  esp.  2^),  he  makes  the  Baptist 
(who  also  in  his  public  preaching  seems  to  have  avoided  this  title) 
give  expression  to  the  same  conception,  consonantly  with  the  manner  in 
which  he  had  spoken  of  the  future  founder  and  King  of  the  Kingdom 
of  Heaven  (3I1,  Mk  i'^,  Lk  3I®,  Jno  j27)  by  the  term  o kpy6pevo<;^ 
the  Coming  One,  the  Great  Expected.  No  doubt  other  expected  per- 
sonalities might  be  similarly  spoken  of  (Mt  11^^  17^®  Jno  6^^),  but 
in  the  mouth  of  the  Baptist  the  expression  was  without  ambiguity:  for 
he  had  spoken  of  One  only  who  was  already  on  the  way,  which  John 
was  to  prepare  for  Him.” 


The  Designaiiotis  in  Matthew  77 

10“*®),  as  well  as  certain  popular  ascriptions  to  the  same 
effect  (21®  23^^).^^ 

Even  more  directly  connected  with  the  title,  ‘ Christ,’ 
however.  Is  that  of  ‘ King  ’ : and  we  find  Matthew 
accordingly  recording  the  ascription  of  that  title  to 
Him  in  the  heathen  form  of  ‘ the  King  of  the  Jews,’ 
alike  by  the  wise  men  of  the  east  who  came  to 
worship  Him  in  His  cradle  (2^)  and  by  the  Roman 
governor  at  His  trial  (27^^  cf.  27^'^)  and  the  mocking 
soldiery  (27^®).  Jesus  accepts  it  at  Pilate’s  hands, 
despite  the  heathen  form  which  he  gives  it,  and  which 
the  priests  (27^“)  correct  to  the  more  acceptable  ‘ King 
of  Israel.’  Of  more  significance  is  Matthew’s  appli- 
cation to  Him,  when  He  entered  Jerusalem  in  triumph, 
of  the  prophecy  of  Zecharlah,  “ Behold  thy  King  com- 
eth  unto  thee,”  etc.  (21^).  But,  of  course,  the  deepest 
significance  of  all  attaches  to  our  Lord’s  own  use  of 
the  title  ‘ King  ’ with  reference  to  Himself  in  the  great 
judgment  scene  of  Mt  25^^  (verses  34  and  40). 
Here,  calling  Himself  the  ‘ Son  of  Man,’  He  ascends 
the  throne  of  His  glory,  and  as  King,  not  of  Israel,  but 
of  all  flesh,  dispenses  their  final  awards  tO'  all,  accord- 
ing to  their  several  rations  to  Himself.  Such  a King 
certainly  was  something  more  than  a ‘ Son  of  David  ’ 
(2  2^^®eq.)^  But  that  designation  also  belongs  to  Him 
as  the  ‘ Christ,’  God’s  Anointed,  who  was  to  occupy 
the  Davidic  throne,  and  accordingly  it  is  represented 
that  the  sight  of  His  Messianic  works  led  Him  to  be 
recognized  no  more  as  ‘the  Coming  One  ’ (ii^)  than 

23  Cf.  W.  C.  Allen  on  Mt  ii^^.  Commenting  on  the  aorist,  Ttapedod-q^ 
he  remarks:  “The  idea  involved  is  of  a pre-temporal  act,  and  carries 
with  it  the  conception  of  the  preexistence  of  the  Messiah.  The  same 
thought  probably  underlies  ^Xdov  of  5^"^  and  the  dnoffre  lavra 

of  io40.” 


78  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

as  ‘the  Son  of  David’  (i2“^  9-’^  15^^  cf. 

1^) — and  that  He  by  no  means  refused  the  ascription 
(esp.  21^’^^). 

Obviously,  however,  no  lower  title  would  suit  the 
state  of  this  Messianic  King  than  that  highest  con- 
Meaning  ceivable  one,  ‘ the  Son  of  God.’  It  is 
of  the  likely  that  there  were  supernatural  im- 
‘Son  of  God*  plications  in  the  mind  of  the  evangelist 
even  when  he  applied  to  the  persecuted  infant  Jesus 
the  prophetic  summary  of  Israelitish  history,  “ Out 
of  Egypt  did  I call  my  Son”  (2^^),  although  at  first 
sight  we  might  seem  to  be  moving  here  in  the  atmos- 
phere of  a merely  official  sonship.^^  In  every  other 
instance  of  the  adduction  of  this  designation  in  Mat- 
thew^ these  supernatural  implications  are  thrust  promi- 
nently forward.  The  very  point  of  Satan’s  temptation 
of  our  Lord  was  that  He  should  exercise  the  super- 
natural powers  which  necessarily  belonged  to  Him — 
if  He  were  indeed  really  ‘a  Son  of  God’  (4^’^  cf. 
829). 25  Sicnilarly  the  confession  wrung  from  the  dis- 

2^  Cf.  Zahn  in  loc.:  “ According  to  the  connection  of  the  narrative 
up  to  this  point,  Jesus  can  be  called  the  Son  of  God  for  no  other  reason 
than  that  He  was  born  of  the  Virgin  apart  from  any  aid  of  man  (cf. 
Lk  1^5).  The  divine  sonship  of  Israel,  which  was  grounded  in  God’s 
calling  this  people  into  being  for  a particular  purpose,  and,  as  it  were, 
begetting  it  (Deut  32I®) — an  idea  which  was  so  vividly  conceived 
that  God’s  fatherhood  is  set  excludingly  over  against  that  of  Abraham 
and  Jacob  (Is  63^®) — appears  as  a type  of  the  divine  Sonship  of  Jesus, 
which  actually  excludes  the  bodily  fatherhood  of  the  son  of  David.” 

25  Cf.  Zahn,  in  loc.  (p.  152);  “He  is  by  a word  of  power  to  create 
for  Himself  the  food  for  which  He  hungers.  This  is  an  echo  out  of 
^ the  abyss  corresponding  to  the  voice  from  heaven  (3^^).  What  God 
declares  of  Jesus,  the  devil  brings  into  question  (Gen  3^,  Job  jSseq.)^ 
demanding  from  Jesus  that  He  should  offer  him  proof  of  it.  We  must 
not  overlook,  however,  that  he  does  not  say,  as  might  have  been  ex- 
pected from  the  undeniable  connection  with  3^’^,  e:  6 ulo^  but  el  o!o^ 


The  Designations  in  Matthew  79 

ciples  by  the  spectacle  of  His  control  of  the  forces  of 
nature,  emphasizes  as  strongly  as  possible  the  super- 
naturalness of  the  Being  who  is  capable  of  such  works 
(14^3) .26  In  Peter’s  great  confession  (16^®)^’^  the  jid- 
junction  of  ‘ the  Son  of  the  Living  God  ’ to  the  simple 
‘ Christ  ’ is  no  more  without  its  high  significance  than 
the  similar  adjunction  in  the  high  priest’s  adjuration 
(2663)28  q£  t God’  to  the  simple  ‘ Christ.’ 

ej  TOO  6eoo»  He  is  to  prove  not  that  He  is  the  unique  Son  of 
God  whom  God  just  on  that  account  has  chosen  as  the  Messiah,  but 
that  He  is  a being  more  closely  related  than  other  men  to  God  (cf.  Mt 
1^33  27'^®).  If  it  cannot  be  unknown  to  the  evil  spirit,  who  is  ac- 
quainted with  the  voice  from  heaven,  that  Jesus  has  been  chosen  to  be 
the  Messiah,  nevertheless  what  he  demands  of  Him  has  nothing  di- 
rectly to  do  with  this  vocation.  It  is,  however,  surely  to  be  expected 
of  One  who  as  a Son  of  God  must  have  power  over  nature,  that  He 
should  rescue  Himself  from  the  unsuitable  condition  of  a hungry  man 
by  the  use  of  His  power.” 

26  Cf.  Zahn,  in  loc.  (p.  513):  “Neither  the  absence  of  the  article 

from  the  predicate  (cf.  on  the  other  hand,  31'^  i6^6  even  nor  the 

position  of  Oeou  before  olog  Is  to  be  overlooked.  Even  if  divine 
Sonship  and  Messianic  dignity  were  s)monyms  (see  to  the  contrary 
p.  145  seg.),  and  what  had  cast  the  disciples  into  adoring  wonder  had 
had  anything  to  do  with  the  office  of  the  Messiah,  the  absence  of  the 
article  nevertheless  would  forbid  us  to  think  of  that  here  (cf.  on  the 
contrary,  i2~^  16^6  21^  2663).  What  is  said  and  what  there  was  occa- 
sion to  say  Is  not  who  but  what  kind  of  a man  Jesus  was.  The  ques- 
tion elicited  by  a similar  occasion,  7ioran6<^  kariv  ourof  (S^t)  is  here 
answered;  though,  naturally,  not  after  the  fashion  of  a scholastic 
dictum,  but  in  the  direct  expression  of  an  overwhelming  experience. 
Not  a son  of  man,  but  a Son  of  God  He  is,  who  exhibits  such  super- 
natural power  over  the  elements,  and  shows  Himself  so  exalted  over 
the  hesitancies  between  the  power  of  faith  and  the  feebleness  of  the 
flesh  which  accompany  human  weakness  even  when  the  spirit  is  willing, 
— as  was  to  be  seen  in  Peter.” 

27  Cf.  Zahn  in  loc.  pp.  534-5:  goes  above  14^2  In  confessing  Jesus  as 
the  Son  of  God,  and  of  the  living  God;  that  is,  Jesus  had  manifested 
the  works  of  the  Son  of  a God  who  exists  and  acts,  etc. 

28  Cf.  Zahn  in  loc.,  pp.  694-5. 


8o 


The  Designations  of  Oiir  Lord 

In  both  instances  the  Intention  Is  to  go  beyond  the 
mere  designation  of  our  Lord  as  the  Messiah,  and  to 
bring  into  relief  the  supernaturalness  of  His  person. 
Even  when  the  Jews  railed  at  Him  as  He  hung  on  the 
cross  that  He  had  proclaimed  Himself  ‘ the  Son  of 
God’  (27^^’^^),  the  point  of  their  scoff  was  that  He 
had  laid  claim  to  a supernatural  relationship  which 
implied  supernatural  powers.  Nevertheless,  the  deepest 
connotations  of  the  Sonship  to  God  come  out  most 
plainly  in  connection  with  the  less  technical  forms  of 
this  designation.  At  the  apex  of  these  stands,  of  course, 
the  double  attestation  which,  it  Is  recorded,  was  given 
to  Jesus  from  heaven  Itself  as  God’s  ‘ Son,’  w^ho  be- 
cause His  ‘ Son  ’ was  also  His  ‘ Beloved,’  His  chosen, 
in  whom  He  was  well  pleased  (3^'^  17^).^®  But  quite 
worthy  of  a place  by  the  side  of  these  supreme  attesta- 
tions Is  the  allusion  which  our  Lord  makes  to  Himself 
in  one  or  two  of  His  parables,  as  the  ‘ Son,’  in  dif- 
ferentiation from  all  “servants”  of  God  whatsoever; 
as  God’s  Son  and  unique  Heir,  who,  despite  what  those 
to  whom  He  was  sent  should  do  unto  Him,  shall  be 
constituted  by  God’s  marvelous  working  the  stone 

29  Cf.  Zahn  in  loc.,  pp.  145  seq.,  where  the  question  is  fully  discussed 
and  solidly  argued:  “As  at  2^^  so  here  the  divine  Sonship  is  to  be 
explained  from  1I8-25.  it  expresses  not  an  official,  but  a personal  rela- 
tion; it  is  not  identical  with  the  Messianic  office,  but  its  presupposi- 
tion.” One  of  the  arguments  on  which  Zahn  lays  stress,  however, 
scarcely  serves : “ The  idea  that  God,  out  of  the  many  sons  which  He 
has,  has  chosen  one  and  that  for  the  Messiahship,  is  excluded  by  the 
attribute  for  in  this  connection  dya7T7]T6<^  bears  the  es- 

tablished sense  of  only  son=^iovo^ev>;9*”  It  appears  to  be  probable, 
on  the  contrary,  that,  as  W.  C.  Allen,  in  loc.,  puts  it  “ 6 dyanTjTo? 
is  not  an  attribute  of  d oloq  [loo,  but  an  independent  title — ‘the 
Beloved  ’ — the  Messiah.”  The  matter  is  discussed  by  Dr.  J.  Armitage 
Robinson  in  Hastings’  Diet.  Bib.  II.  501,  and  in  his  commentary  on 
Ephesians,  pp.  229!!. 


The  Designations  in  Matthew  8i 

which  Is  the  head  of  the  corner  (21^’^'^®)  and  as  the 
King’s  Son,  all  those  unworthy  of  a place  at  whose 
marriage  feast  should  have  their  part  In  the  outer  dark- 
ness where  Is  the  weeping  and  the  gnashing  of  teeth 
(22^).  This  ‘Son’  obviously  Is  no  less  In  origin  and 
nature  divine  than  In  His  working  In  the  earth  the  Lord 
of  the  destinies  of  men. 

But  perhaps  the  most  Illuminating  passages  In  this 
reference  remain  yet  to  be  adduced.  These  are  those 
. three  remarkable  utterances  of  our  Lord 
which  are  recorded  at  24^%  11^^  and 
2 818-20^  The  first  of  these  we  have  al- 
ready met  with  In  Mark.  It  Is  that  difficult  saying 
In  which  our  Lord  declares  that  “ concerning  the  day 
and  hour  ” of  His  coming  “ no  one  knows,  not  even 
the  angels  of  heaven,  nor  yet  the  Son,  but  the  Father 
only  ” — which  differs  from  the  parallel  In  Mark  sig- 
nificantly only  In  the  added  emphasis  placed  on  the 
exclusion  of  all  others  whatsoever  from  this  knowledge 
by  the  adjunction  to  the  exception  of  the  Father  of 
the  emphatic  word  “ only.”  The  elevation  of  the  Son 
here  to  superangellc  dignity,  as  the  climax  of  the 
enumeration  of  those  excluded  from  the  knowledge 
In  question  Is  reached  In  His  name — no  one  at  all,  not 
even  the  angels  of  heaven,  nor  yet  even  the  Son — Is 
what  It  particularly  concerns  us  to  note.  Implying  as 
It  does  the  exaltation  of  the  Son  above  the  highest  of 
creatures,  “ the  angels  of  heaven.”^^  The  second  of 

so  Cf.  Zahn,  in  loc.,  pp.  620,  621. 

SI  The  words  “ nor  yet  the  Son  ” are,  to  be  sure,  lacking  in  a few 
somewhat  unimportant  witnesses  to  the  text,  but  can  scarcely  be  ad- 
judged of  doubtful  genuineness.  W.  C.  Allen  rejects  them  In  sequence 
to  a theory  of  his  own  of  the  relation  of  Matthew  to  Mark,  and  Mat- 
thew’s habit  of  dealing  with  Mark’s  christological  statements.  Zahn 


82  The  Designations  of  Oiir  Lord 

the  utterances  in  question  is  in  some  respects 

the  most  remarkable  in  the  whole  compass  of  the  four 
Gospels.  { Even  the  Gospel  of  John  contains  nothing 
which  penetrates  more  deeply  into  the  essential  rela- 
tion of  the  Son  to  the  Father.  Indeed,  as  Dr.  Sanday 
suggests,  “ we  might  describe  the  teaching  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel  ” as  only  “ a series  of  variations  upon 
the  one  theme,  which  has  its  classical  expression  in  ” 
this  “verse  of  the  Synoptics  ” “All  things  were  de- 
livered unto  me  by  my  Father;  and  no  one  knoweth 
the  Son  save  the  Father;  neither  doth  any  know  the 
Father  save  the  Son,  and  he  to  whomsoever  the  Son 
willeth  to  reveal  Him.”  The  point  of  the  utterance, 
it  will  be  seen,  is  that  in  it  our  Lord  asserts  for  Himself 
a relation  of  practical  equality  with  the  Father,  here 
described  in  most  elevated  terms  as  the  “ Lord  of 
heaven  and  earth”  (v.  25).®®  As  the  Father  only  can 
know  the  Son,  so  the  Son  only  can  know  the  Father: 
and  others  may  know  the  Father  only  as  He  is  revealed 
by  the  Son.  That  is,  not  merely  is  the  Son  the  ex- 
clusive revealer  of  God,  but  the  mutual  knowledge  of 
Father  and  Son  is  put  on  what  seems  very  much  a par. 
The  Son  can  be  known  only  by  the  Father  in  all  that 
He  is,  as  if  His  being  were  infinite  and  as  such  in- 

more  wisely  retains  them,  as  do  all  the  editors.  “The  documentary 
evidence  in  their  favor,”  says  Hort  justly,  “ is  overwhelming.” 

32  Criticism  of  the  Ne^w  Testament, — by  a company  of  scholars, — 
p.  17. 

33  Cf.  Zahn  on  Mt  ii25-30  440):  “As  Jesus  here  names  Him 

whom  He  has  just  called  ‘ His  Father,’  in  the  second  and  third  clauses 
simply  ‘the  Father  ’ — which  is  not  to  be  paralleled  with  the  address  of 
vv.  25,  26 — so  He  names  Himself  three  times  simply  ‘ the  Son,’  in 
order  to  designate  Himself  as  the  only  one  who  stood  to  God  in  the 
full  sense  of  that  name  in  the  relation  of  a Son  to  a Father.” 


The  Designations  in  Matthew  83 


scrutable  to  the  finite  intelligence;  and  His  knowledge 
alone — again  as  if  He  were  infinite  in  His  attributes — 
is  competent  to  compass  the  depths  of  the  Father’s 
infinite  being.  He  who  holds  this  relation  to  the 
Father  cannot  conceivably  be  a creature,  and  we  ought 
not  to  be  surprised,  therefore,  to  find  in  the  third  of 
these  great  utterances  (28^®'^^)  the  Son  made  openly  a 
sharer  with  the  Father  (and  with  the  Holy  Spirit)  in 
the  single  Name  of  God:  “All  authority  was  given 
me^^  in  heaven  and  in  earth.  Go  ye  therefore  and 
make  disciples  of  all  the  nations,  baptizing  them  into 
the  Name  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the 
Holy  Spirit;  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  what- 
soever I commanded  you;  and  lo,  I am  with  you  alway, 
even  unto  the  end  of  the  world.”  Having  in  the 
former  passage  declared  His  intercommunion 

with  the  Father,  who  is  the  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth, 
Jesus  here  asserts  that  all  authority  in  heaven  and 
earth  has  been  given  Him,  and  asserts  a place  for  Him- 
self in  the  pj;ecincts  of  the  ineffable  Name.  Here  is 
a claim  not  merely  to  a deity  in  some  sense  equivalent 
to  and  as  it  were  alongside  of  the  deity  of  the  Father, 
but  to  a deity  in  some  high  sense  one  with  the  deity 
of  the  Father. 

Alongside  of  these  more  usual  Messianic  titles,  there 
are  found  in  Matthew,  as  in  Mark,  traces  of  the  use 


Less  Common  of  Others  of  our  Lord,  apparently  less 
Messianic  current  among  the  people.  In  Mat- 
thewy  too,  for  example,  we  find  Jesus 
represented  as  designated  from  heaven  ‘ the  Be- 
loved,’ who  has  been  chosen  out  by  God  as  His  rep- 


Note  the  aorist,  which  as  in  ii27  (cf.  W.  C.  Allen,  in  loc.)  appears 
to  refer  to  a pre-temporal  act. 


84  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

resentative  (3^^  and  as  identifying  Himself 

with  the  mysterious  Shepherd  of  Zechariah  who  is 
Jehovah’s  fellow  (26^^).  And  we  find  Him  here  also 
not  only  designating  Himself  the  ‘ Bridegroom  ’ 
(9^^),  but  elucidating  the  designation  in  a couple' of 
striking  parables  (the  parable  of  the  Ten  Virgins, 
2 .1  seq.,5,6,10.  parable  of  the  Marriage  of  the 

King’s  Son,  22^®®^^-),  the  suggestion  of  which  is  that 
the  fate  of  men  hangs  on  their  relation  to  Him;  that 
men  all  live  with  reference  to  Him;  and  it  is  He  that 
opens  and  shuts  the  door  of  life  for  them.  The  high 
significance  of  these  designations  as  applied  to  Jesus 
has  already  been  pointed  out  when  we  met  with  them 
in  Mark.  It  is  more  important,  therefore,  to  observe 
here  that  the  irnplicit  reference  in  Mark  to  the  ‘ Serv- 
ant of  Jehovah  ’ as  a designation  of  Jesus  is  made 
explicit  in  Matthew  by  the  formal  application  to  Him 
of  the  prophecy  in  Isaiah  40^  (12^®®®*^-)  as  a divine 

prediction  of  the  unostentatiousness  of  His  ministry, 
in  its  striking  contrast  with  the  expectations  which  had 
been  formed  of  the  Messiah’s  work  on  the  basis  of  the 
predictions  centering  around  the  Anointed  King,  the 
Son  of  David. 

This  unostentatiousness  entered  also  into  the  concep- 
tion of  the  Messiah  expressed  in  our  Lord’s  favorite 
self-designation  of  ‘ Son  of  Man,’ — 
‘Son  of  Man’  which  in  Matthew’s  representation,  too, 
appears  as  the  standing  Messianic  des- 
ignation which  our  Lord  employs  of  Himself,  occur- 
ring as  such  about  thirty  times.  The  Messianic 
character  of  this  designation  is  placed  beyond  all  doubt 

Cf.  W.  C.  Allen  on  3!^^  and  J.  A.  Robinson,  Ephesians  229  seq.  and 
Hastings’  Diet,  of  the  Bible,  ii.,  p.  501;  also  Charles,  Ascension  of 
Isaiah,  p.  3 et  passim,  and  E.  Daplyn  sub  voc.  Hastings’  D,  C.  G, 


The  Designations  in  Matthew  85 

by  its  interchange  with  other  Messianic  titles  (I6^^ 
cf.  verses  16,  20;  17^  cf.  verse  10  [the  forerunner  of 
Messiah];  24^^  cf.  verse  23;  26®"^,  cf.  verse  63)  : and 
the  conception  suggested  by  it  of  the  Messiah,  as 
judged  by  the  substance  of  the  passages  in  which  it 
occurs,  differs  in  nothing  from  that  derived  from  the 
passages  in  Mark  except  that  it  is  illuminated  by  more 
details.  Here,  too,  we  learn  that  the  ‘ Son  of  Man  ’ 
came  to  minister, — or  more  specifically  for  the  pur- 
pose of  redemption : “ the  Son  of  Man  came  not  to 
be  ministered  unto,  but  to  minister,  and  to  give  His 
life  a ransom  for  many”  (20^®).  Suffering  and  death 
were,  therefore.  His  appointed  portion  (17^^  17^^  20^^ 
252,24,45^^  as  indeed  Scripture  had  foretold  (12^*^).  But 
after  death  is  the  resurrection  (17^’““  20^®  12^®),  and 
after  the  resurrection  the  “ coming  ” in  great  glory  to 
judge  the  world  (10^^  26®^).  There  is  noth- 

ing here  which  we  had  not  already  in  Mark,  but  every- 
where details  are  filled  in.  The  fortunes  of  the  earthly 
life  of  the  ‘ Son  of  Man  ’ are  traced.  We  learn  that 
He  lived  like  other  men,  without  asceticism, — “ eating 
and  drinking”  (ii^^)  ; but  lived  a hard  and  suffering 
life, — He  had  not  where  to  lay  His  head  (8“^).  His 
task  was  to  sow  the  good  seed  of  the  word  (13^^). 
As  part  of  His  lowliness,  it  emerges  that  blasphemy 
against  Him  is  forgivable,  as  it  is  not  against  the  Holy 
Ghost  (12^^).  And  the  suffering  He  is  called  on  to 
endure  runs  out  into  death  (17^^’^“).  It  would  not 
be  easy  to  give  a more  itemized  account  of  the  suffer- 
ings He  endured  at  the  end  than  Mark  gives,  but 
they  are  all  set  down  here,  too  (20^®),  as  also  is  the 
promise  of  the  resurrection  (12^^  1^9.23  20^®) . When  He 
shall  come  again  is  left  here,  too,  in  the  indefinite  future 


86 


The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

(24"^,  cf.  iO“"),  but  the  suddenness  of  its  eventuation 
is  emphasized 

The  details  become  notably  numerous  again,  how- 
ever, when  the  purpose  and  accompaniment  of  this 
coming  are  adverted  to  (13^^  16“^  19^^  24^^  25^^  26®^). 
The  ‘ Son  of  Man  ’ is  “ henceforth  to  be  seen  sitting 
at  the  right  hand  of  power  and  coming  in  the  clouds 
of  heaven”  (26^^  24^^).  He  is  to  come  in  the  glory 
of  His  Father  with  His  angels  (i6“^),  for  all  the 
angels  are  to  be  with  Him  (25^^).  The  end  of  His 
coming  is  to  pass  judgment  on  men  and  to  consummate 
the  Kingdom.  “ For  the  Son  of  Man  shall  come  in 
the  glory  of  His  Father  with  His  angels,  and  then 
shall  He  render  unto  every  man  according  to  his  deeds  ” 
(i6“^) — and  this  is  “to  come  in  His  kingdom” 
(i6“®).  There  is  naturally  a punitive  side  to  this 
judgment  and  a side  of  rev/ard.  Of  the  punitive  side 
we  are  told  that  “ when  the  sign  of  the  Son  of  Man 
coming  in  the  clouds  of  heaven  with  power  and  great 
glory  shall  appear,”  “ all  the  tribes  of  the  earth  shall 
mourn”  (24''^^^);  and  that  He  “shall  send  forth  His 
angels,  and  they  shall  gather  out  of  His  kingdom  all 
things  that  cause  stumbling  and  them  that  do  iniquity, 
and  shall  cast  them  into  the  furnace  of  fire : there  shall 
be  the  weeping  and  the  gnashing  of  teeth”  (13^^). 
On  the  side  of  reward  we  are  told  that  “ those  who 
have  followed  Him,  in  the  regeneration  when  the  ‘ Son 
of  Man  ’ shall  sit  on  the  throne  of  His  glory  ” “ also 
shall  sit  upon  twelve  thrones  judging  the  twelv^tribes 
of  Israel”  (19"®).  For  “He  shall  send  forth  His 
angels  with  a great  sound  of  trumpets,  and  they  shall 
gather  together  His  elect  from  the  four  winds;  from 
one  end  of  heaven  to  the  other”  (24^^),  and  “then 


The  Designations  in  Matthew  87 

dom  of  their  Father  ” (13^^).  It  is  obviously  the 
universal  judgment  that  is  here  brought  before  us; 
and  the  consummation  of  the  Kingdom,  when  by  this 
judgment  all  that  is  impure  js  drafted  out  of  it  and  the 
chosen  are  made  sharers  in  the  universal  regeneration. 
The  whole  scene  of  the  judgment  is  pictured  for  us 
with  great  vividness  in  the  remarkable  passage, 
where  all  the  nations  are  depicted  as  summoned  before 
the  throne  of  the  ‘ Son  of  Man’s  ’ glory  and  separated 
according  to  their  deeds  done  in  the  body — interpreted 
as  relating  to  Him — to  the  eternal  inheritance  of  the 
kingdom  prepared  for  them  from  the  foundation  of 
the  world  or  to  the  eternal  fire  prepared  for  the  devil 
and  his  angels.  The  ‘ Son  of  Man  ’ appears  here  ac- 
cordingly as  the  King  on  His  throne  apportioning  to 
men  their  eternal  destinies. 

Clearly,  according  to  Matthew’s  account  of  our 
Lord’s  declarations,  the  ‘ Son  of  Man  ’ has  His  period 
The  High  ®f  humiliation  on  earth,  living  as  other 
Meaning  of  men  sowing  the  seed  (13^^), 

* Son  of  Man’  having  not  where  to  lay  His  head  (8^^) 
as  He  ministers  to  men  (20^®),  forgiving  even  blas- 
phemy against  Himself  (12^^)  and  all  indignities 
(i7i2’22),  down  to  death  itself  (17^^  20^®) — and  yet 
even  while  on  earth  having  authority  to  forgive  sins 
(9®)  and  to  regulate  religious  ordinances  (12®),  and 
dying  only  that  He  may  ransom  others  (202^).  And 
He  has  also  His  period  of  exaltation,  when  having 
risen  from  the  dead  (12^®  1^9,23  He  in  due  time 

comes  in  His  glory,  surrounded  by  His  servants  the 
angels  (162^  25^^  24^^),  and  gathers  to  Himself  His 
chosen  ones  whom  He  has  ransomed  by  His  death 
(24^^  13^^)  ^nd,  cleansing  His  Kingdom  of  all  that 
is  iinrlean.  RPts  If-  nn  in  Ifs  dpstlned  nerfectlon  (16^^). 


88  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

The  picture  that  is  drawn  is  clearly,  then,  a picture  of 
voluntary  humiliation  for  a high  end,  with  the  ac- 
complishment of  the  end  and  return  to  the  original 
glory.  In  order  to  bring  all  its  implications  out  in 
their  completeness  we  have  only  to  recall  what  Mat- 
thew tells  us,  on  the  one  hand,  of  the  ‘ Son  ’ who  is 
superior  to  angels  (24^®),  who  is  God’s  adequate  and 
exclusive  Revelation,  knowing  Him  even  as  He  is 
known  (ii^^),  who  is  sharer  with  the  Father  in  the 
one  ineffable  Name  (28^^'^^)  ; and,  on  the  other,  in 
the  opening  chapter  of  his  Gospel,  of  the  supernatural 
birth  of  this  heavenly  Being,  breaking  His  way  to  earth 
through  a virgin’s  womb  in  fulfillment  of  the  prophecy 
that  He  should  be  called  “ Immanuel,”  “ God  with 
us,”  For  it  can  scarcely  be  doubted  that  Matthew 
means  this  name  ‘Immanuel’  (i‘^)  to  be  interpreted 
metaphysically  of  Jesus,  and  therefore  adduces  the 
prophecy  as  a testimony  to  the  essential  deity  of  the 
virgin-born  child, — and  indeed  the  angel  messenger 
himself  is  recorded  as  not  obscurely  indicating  this 
when  he  explains  that  the  child  whose  birth  he  an- 
nounces shall  be  called  Jesus  “ because  it  is  He  that 
shall  save  His  people  from  their  sins  ” — thus  applying 
to  the  promised  infant  the  words  spoken  in  Ps  130^ 
of  Jehovah  Himself:  “And  He  shall  redeem  Israel 
from  all  his  iniquities.”®®  The  very  name  ‘ Jesus  ’ 
for  Matthew,  as  truly  as  that  of  ‘ Immanuel  ’ itself,  is 
thus  freighted  with  an  implication  of  the  deity  of  its 
bearer:  and  this  is  only  a symbol  of  the  saturation  of 
his  Gospel  with  the  sense  of  the  supreme  majesty  of  the 
great  personality  whose  life-history  as  the  promised 
Messiah  he  has  undertaken  to  portray. 

3®  So  Dalman,  strikingly,  Words,  297. 


MATTHEW’S  CONCEPTION  OF  OUR  LORD 


In  seeking  to  form  an  estimate  of  the  significance 
of  this  list  of  designations  ascribed  to  Jesus  in  Mat- 
Profundity  of  thew,  it  does  not  seem  necessary  to 
Matthew’s  attempt  to  draw  out  separately,  as  we 
Suggestiveness  attempted  to  do  in  the  case  of  Mark, 
the  evidence  they  supply  to  the  primary  emphasis 
laid  in  Matthew  upon  the  Messianic  dignity  of  Jesus 
and  that  they  supply  to  the  recognition  of  the  divine 
majesty  of  His  person.  It  lies  on  the  very  face  of 
these  designations  that  by  Matthew,  as  truly  as  by 
Mark,  Jesus  js  conceived  in  the  first  instance  as  the 
promised  Messiah,  and  His  career  and  work  as  funda- 
mentally the  career  and  work  of  the  Messiah,  at  last 
come  to  introduce  the  promised  Kingdom.  And  it  lies 
equally  on  their  very  face  that  this  Messiah  whom 
Jesus  is  represented  as  being  is  conceived  by  Mat- 
thew, and  is  represented  by  Matthew  as  having  been 
conceived  by  Jesus  Himself,  as  a “ transcendent  ” 
figure,  as  the  current  mode  of  speech  puts  it,  i.  e.,  as 
far  transcending  in  His  nature  and  dignity  human 
conditions. 

So  clear  is  this  in  fact  that  our  Interest  as  we  read 
instinctively  takes  hold  in  Matthew  of  matters  quite 
other  than  those  which  naturally  occupy  it  in  Mark. 
In  Mark  the  attention  of  the  reader  is  attracted  par- 
ticularly to  the  implications  of  the  superangelic  dignity 
ascribed  to  the  Messiah;  and  he  finds  himself  unpre- 

89 


90  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

meditatingly  noting  the  evidence  of  the  presupposition 
of  His  heavenly  origin  and  relations,  of  His  pre- 
existence, of  His  more  than  human  majesty,  of  His 
divine  powers  and  functions.  These  things  are  so 
much  a matter  of  course  with  Matthew  that  the  at- 
tention of  the  reader  is  drawn  insensibly  off  from  them 
to  profounder  problems.  This  Gospel  opens  with  an 
account  of  the  supernatural  bir^h  of  Jesus,  which  is 
so  told  as  to  imply  that  the  birth  is  supernatural  only 
because  the  person  so  born  is  not  of  this  world,  but 
in  descending  to  it  fulfills  the  prophecies  that  Jehovah 
shall  come  to  His  people  to  dwell  among  them  and  to 
save  them  from  their  sins.  From  the  very  outset, 
therefore,  there  can  be  no  question  in  the  mind  of  the 
reader  that  he  has  to  deal  no-t  merely  with  a super- 
natural life  but  with  a supernatural  person,  all  whose 
life  on  earth  is  a concession  to  a necessity  arising  solely 
from  His  purpose  to  save.^  No  wonder  rises  in  him, 
therefore,  when  he  reads  of  the  supramundai^  powers 
of  this  person,  of  His  superhuman  insight,  of  His 
supernatural  deeds.  That  He  is  superior  to  the  angels, 
who  appear  constantly  as  His  servants,  and  is  in  some 
profound  sense  divine,  clothed  with  all  divine  qualities, 
strikes  him  as  in  no  sense  strange.  The  matters  on 
which  he  finds  his  mind  keenly  alert  rise  above  these 

^Cf.  W.  C.  Allen,  Hastings’  D.  C.  G.,  I.,  308 : “ In  the  thought  of 
the  evangelist,  Jesus,  born  of  the  Virgin  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  was  the 
preexistent  Messiah  (=  the  Beloved)  or  Son  who  had  been 

forechosen  by  God  (3^'^  17®) > and  who,  when  born  Into  the  world  as 
Jesus,  was  ‘ God-with-us  ’ (i^^).  In  this  respect  the  writer  of  the 
First  Gospel  shows  himself  to  be  under  the  influence  of  the  same  con- 
ception of  the  Person  of  Christ  that  dominates  the  Johannine  theology, 
though  this  conception  under  the  categories  of  the  Logos  and  the  Divine 
Son  is  worked  out  much  more  fully  in  the  Fourth  than  in  the  First 
Gospel.” 


Matthezv^s  Conception  of  Our  Lord  9 1 

things,  and  concern  the  precise  relations  in  which  this 
superangelic,  and  therefore  uncreated,  Being  is  con- 
ceived to  stand  to  the  Deity  Himself. 

It  is  not  possible  to  avoid  noting  that  all  the  desig- 
nations applied  to  Jesus  in  this  narrative  tend  to  run 
Richness  up  at  once  on  being  applied  to  Him 
of  His  into  their  highest  implications.  Even 
Implications  simple  name  ‘ Jesus  ’ is  no  exception 

to  this.  For  here  it  is  represented  as  itself  a gift  from 
heaven,  designed  to  indicate  that  in  this  person  is  ful- 
filled the  promise  that  Jehovah  shall  visit  His  people, 
— for  it  is  He  who,  in  accordance  with  the  prediction 
of  the  Psalmist  (130^),  shall  save  His  people — His 
people,  although,  in  accordance  with  that  prediction, 
they  are  Jehovah’s  people — from  their  sins 
Similarly  the  simple  honorifics  ‘ Master  ’ and  ‘ Lord  ’ 
rise  in  Matthew’s  hands  to  their  highest  value;  ‘ Mas- 
ter ’ becomes  transformed  into  the  more  absolute 
Master  of  the  House  ” with  His  despotic  power, 
governing  all  things  in  accordance  with  His  will  (20^^) 
and  disposing  of  the  destinies  of  men  in  supreme  sov- 
ereignty (iO“^  J^24seq.,36seq.^  . ‘ Lord  ’ becomes  the 

proper  designation  of  the  universal  King  and  Judge 
(2^37,44)  ^hose  coming  is  the  coming  of  Jehovah  (3^). 

X^As  the  ‘ Christ  ’ He  is  pictured  as  sitting  less  on  David’s 
throne  than  on  God’s  (22^^’'^^)  ; as  ‘ King,’  less  as  the 
ruler  of  the  nation  for  Israel  than  as  Judge  of  all 
the  world  for  God  (25^^®®"^);  as  ‘Bridegroom’  as 
holding  in  His  own  hands  the  issues  of  life  (22^  25^)  ; 
as  ‘ the  Son  of  Man  ’ as  passing  through  humiliation 
only  to  His  own  proper  glory  (i6“^  24^®  26^);  as 
‘ the  Son  of  God  ’ less  as  God’s  representative  and  the 
vehicle  of  His  grace  than  as  God’s  fellow  and 


92  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

the  sharer  with  the  Father  in  the  one  Ineffable  Name 
(2  818-20)^  Thus  the  reader  Is  brought  steadily  upwards 
to  the  great  passages  In  which  Matthew  records  Jesus’ 
supreme  self-testimony  to  His  essential  relations  with 
His  Father,  and  his  attention  Is  quite  Insistently  focused 
upon  them. 

“ All  things  were  delivered  unto  me  of  my  Father,” 
says  Jesus,  as  reported  In  one  of  them  (ii^^)  : “and 
^ ■ Assimilation  ^o  One  knoweth  the  Son  save  the 
of  Jesus  Father;  neither  doth  any  know  the 

With  God  Father  save  the  Son,  and  he  to  whom- 
soever the  Son  wllleth  to  reveal  Him.  Come  unto 
me,  all  ye  that  labor  and  are  heavy  laden,  and  I will 
give  you  rest.”  Thus  our  Lord  solemnly  presents  Him- 
self to  men  as  the  exclusive  source  of  all  knowledge  of 
God,  and  the  exclusive  channel  of  divine  grace.  No 
one  can  know  the  Father  save  through  Him,  and 
through  Him  alone  can  rest  be  found  for  weary  souls. 
And  this  His  exclusive  mediation  of  saving  knowledge 
He  makes  to  rest  upon  His  unique  relation  to  the 
Father,  by  virtue  of  which  the  Father  and  Son,  and 
all  that  Is  In  the  Father  and  Son,  He  mutually  open  to 
each  other’s  gaze.  Attention  has  been  called  to  the 
fact,  and  It  Is  Important  to  observe  It,  that  the  whole 
passage  Is  cast  In  the  present  tense,  and  the  relation 
announced  to  exist  between  the  Father  and  Son  is, 
therefore,  represented  not  as  a past  relation  but  as  a 
continuous  and  unbroken  one.  What  our  Lord  asserts 
Is  thus  not  that  He  once  was  with  the  Father  and  knew 
His  mind,  and  Is  therefore  fitted  to  mediate  It  as  His 
representative  on  earth : It  Is  that  He,  though  on 
earth,  still  Is  with  the  Father  and  knows  His  mind — 
yea,  and  will  know  it  unchangeably  forever.  The  rela- 


Matthew^s  Conception  of  Our  Lord  93 

tions  of  time  do  not  enter  into  the  representation.  Our 
Lord  presents  Himself  as  the  sole  source  of  the  knowl- 
edge of  God  and  of  the  divine  grace,  because  this  is 
the  relation  in  which  He  stands  essentially  to  the 
Father, — a relation  of  complete  and  perfect  intercom- 
munion. The  assertion  of  the  reciprocal  knowledge 
of  the  Father  and  Son,  in  other  words,  rises  far  above 
the  merely  mediatorial  function  of  the  Son,  although  it 
underlies  His  mediatorial  mission:  it  carries  us  back 
into  the  region  of  metaphysical  relations.  The  Son 
is  a fit  and  perfect  mediator  of  the  divine  knowledge 
and  grace  because  the  Son  and  the  Father  are  mutually 
intercommunicative.  The  depths  of  the  Son’s  being, 
we  are  told,  can  be  fathomed  by  none  but  a divine 
knowledge,  while  the  knowledge  of  the  Son  compasses 
all  that  God  is;  from  both  points  of  view,  the  Son 
appears  thus  as  “ equal  with  God.” 

But  even  this  is  far  from  the  whole  story.  The 
perfect  reciprocal  knowledge  of  each  by  the  other 
Identification  which  is  affirmed  goes  far  towards  sug- 
of  Jesus  gesting  that  even  equality  with  God 

With  God  £^pg  short  of  fully  expressing  the  rela- 

tion in  which  the  Son  actually  stands  to  the  Father. 
Equality  is  an  external  relation:  here  there  is  indicated 
an  internal  relation  which  suggests  rather  the  term 
interpenetration.  There  is  a relation  with  the  Father 
here  suggested  which  transcends  all  creaturely  possi- 
bilities, and  in  which  there  is  no  place  even  for  sub- 
ordination. The  man  Jesus  does  indeed  represent 
Himself  as  exercising  a mediatorial  function;  what 
He  does  is  to  reveal  the  Father  and  to  mediate  His 
grace;  and  that  because  of  a delivery  over  to  Him 
by  the  Father.  But  this  mediatorial  function  is  rooted 


94 


The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

in  a metaphysical  relation  in  which  is  suggested  no 
hint  of  subordination.  v^Rather  in  this  region  what 
the  Father  is  that  the  Son  seems  to  be  also.  There 
is  mystery  here,  no  doubt,  and  nothing  is  done  to  re- 
lieve the  mystery.  All  that  is  done  is  to  enunciate 
in  plain  words  the  conception  of  the  relation  actually 
existing  between  the  Father  and  Son  which  supplies 
their  suitable  account  to  all  those  passages  in  Matthew 
in  which  there  seems  to  be  suggested  a confusion  of 
Jesus  with  God,  whether  in  function  or  in  person.  If 
this  be  the  relation  of  Son  and  Father — if  there  is  a 
certain  mysterious  interpenetration  to  be  recognized 
between  them — then  it  is  no  longer  strange  that  to 
Jesus  is  attribu^d  all  the  functions  of  God,  including 
the  forgiveness  of  sins  and  the  universal  judgment  of 
men,  nor  that  in  Him  is  seen  the  coming  of  Jehovah 
to  save  His  people,  in  His  presence  with  men  the 
fulfillment  of  the  prophecy  of  ‘ Immanuel,’  God- 
with-us,  in  the  coming  of  John  the  Baptist  to  prepare 
His  way  the  fulfillment  of  the  prophecy  of  the  mes- 
senger to  make  the  way  of  Jehovah  straight,  and  the 
like.  All  things  were  delivered  to  Him,  in  short,  be- 
cause He  is  none  else  than  God  on  earth.  • 

Of  quite  similar  import  is  the  great  declaration  with 
which  the  Gospel  closes.  In  this  our  Lord,  announcing 
Participation  that  all  authority  was  given  to  Him 
of  Jesus  in  the  in  heaven  and  earth — that  is,  that  uni- 
Name  versal  dominion  was  committed  to  Him 
— commands  His  disciples  to  advance  to  the  actual  con- 
quest of  the  world,  baptizing  all  the  nations  into  the 
Name  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  and  promises  to  be  Himself  with  them  unto 
the  end  of  the  world  (28^^“®).  In  the  absence  of  the 


'Matthew^ s Conception  of  Our  Lord  95 

former  passage,  It  might  conceivably  be  possible  to 
look  upon  the  dominion  here  claimed  and  the  con- 
junction here  asserted  of  the  Son  with  the  Father  In  the 
future  government  of  the  Kingdom  as  having  no  root- 
ing In  His  essential  nature  but  as  constituting  merely 
a reward  consequent  upon  our  Lord’s  work.  In 
the  presence  of  that  passage  we  cannot  void  this,  how- 
ever, of  Its  testimony  to  essential  relations.  And  the 
relation  here  assigned  to  the  Son  with  respect  to  deity 
Is  the  same  as  was  suggested  there.  The  significant 
point  of  this  passage  Is  the  singular  “ Name.”  It  does 
not  read,  “ Into  the  names  ” — as  of  many,  but  of  one, 
— “ Into  the  Name  ” of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son  and 
of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  Father,  the  Son  and  the 
Spirit  are  therefore  In  some  Ineffable  sense  one,  sharers 
In  the  single  Name.  Of  course  It  Is  what  we  know  as 
the  Christian  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  which  Is  sug- 
gested here,  as  It  was  less  clearly  suggested  In  the 
former  passage,,  and  as  this  doctrine  Is  needed  In  order 
give  consistency  and  solidity  to  the  pervasive  sug- 
gestion of  Matthew’s  entire  narrative  that  Jesus,  whose 
( career  he  Is  recounting.  Is  In  some  higher  sense  than 
mere  delegation  or  representation  not  merely  a super- 
human or  superangellc  or  supercreaturely  person,  but 
an  actually  Divine  Person,  possessed  of  divine  preroga- 
tives, active  In  divine  power,  and  In  multiform  ways 
manifesting  a divine  nature.  It  were  Impossible  for 
Matthew  to  paint  Jesus  as  he  has  painted  Him,  and  to 
attribute  to  Him  what  we  have  seen  him  attributing 
to  Him,  without  some  such  conception  as  Is  enunciated 
In  these  two  great  passages  In  his  mind  to  support,  sus- 
tain and  give  Its  justification  to  his  representation.  So 
far  from  these  passages  offending  the  reader  as  they 


g6  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

stand  in  Matthew's  Gospel,  therefore,  and  raising 
doubts  of  their  genuineness,  we  should  have  had  to 
postulate  something  like  them  for  Matthew,  had  they 
not  stood  in  his  Gospel.  Matthew's  portrait  of  Jesus 
and  the  self-witness  he  quotes  from  Jesus’  lips  to  His 
estate  and  dignit}’,  in  other  words,  themselves  necessi- 
tate a doctrine  of  His  nature  and  relations  with  God 
very  much  such  as  is  set  forth  in  these  passages:  and 
we  can  feel  perfectly  assured,  therefore,  that  these 
passages  represent  with  great  exactness  what  Matthew 
would  tell  us  of  Jesus'  deity  and  what  he  would  report 
as  Jesus'  own  conception  of  His  divine  relations.  And 
what  they  tell  us — we  must  not  balk  at  it — is  just  that 
Jesus  is  all  that  God  is,  and  shares  in  God's  nature  as 
truly  as  in  God's  majesty  and  power. 


THE  DESIGNATIONS  OF  OUR  LORD  IN 
LUKE  AND  THEIR  IMPLICATIONS 


We  meet  very  much  the  same  series  of  designations 
applied  to  our  Lord  in  Luke  as  in  the  other  Synoptists. 
But  they  are  applied  with  some  characteristic  dif- 
ferences. 

In  Luke,  too,  the  ordinal*}^  narrative  designation  of 
our  Lord  is  the  simple  ‘ Jesus,’  which  occurs  about  sev- 
enty-seven times. ^ This  simplest  of  all  des- 
The  Narrative  ...  i • i i i 

Designations  ignations  IS  not  so  exclusively  employed 

in  the  narrative  of  Luke,  however,  as  in 
those  of  Matthew  and  Mark.  There  is  an  occasional 
variation  in  Luke  to  the  more  descriptive  designa- 
tion of  ‘the  Lord’  jq1,39,41  ^^39  ^^42  j^l5 

18®  19®  2 fourteen  times).  No  other  designation 
than  these  tv*o,  however,  occurs  as  a narrative  desig- 
nation in  Luke,  although  in  three  instances  Luke  makes 
use  of  another  in  his  narrative.  In  two  of  these  in- 
stances he  is  apparently  repeating  words  from  the  lips 
of  others:  he  tells  us  that  it  had  been  revealed  to 
Simeon  that  he  should  not  die  until  he  had  seen  ‘ the 
Lord’s  Christ’  (2“®)  and  that  Bartimaeus  was  told 
that  ‘Jesus  of  Nazareth’  was  passing  (i8^‘).  In  the 
remaining  instance  he  remarks  that  the  evil  spirits 
knew  that  Jesus  was  ‘the  Christ’  (4'^^);  where  ‘the 
Christ’  is  not  strictly  a designation  of  Jesus,  but  the 

^‘Jesus’  is  anarthrous:  321,23  ^s.io  g4i  ^S6,50  ig37,40 

22*8,52  23-® 


97 


98  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

general  term  ‘ the  Messiah.’  These  instances  exhibit 
Luke’s  willingness  to  speak  of  Jesus  as  the  Messiah 
indeed;  but  are  scarcely  exceptions  to  the  general  fact 
that  he  himself  designates  Jesus  in  the  course  of  his 
narrative  only  as  ‘ Jesus  ’ and  as  ‘ the  Lord.’^  As  in 
the  other  Synoptists,  the  simple  ‘ Jesus  ’ in  Luke  is 
also  practically  reserved  for  the  narrative  designation. 
Only  in  the  two  instances  of  the  annunciation  of  His 
name  by  the  angel  (T^),  which  is  no  exception,  and 
in  the  address  to  Jesus  on  the  cross  by  the  dying  thief 
(2342)3  jg  broken.  But,  as  in  the  other  Syn- 

optists, the  name  ‘ Jesus  ’ occurs  in  compound  forms 
of  address  to  Him  recorded  by  the  evangelist, — 
‘Jesus,  Thou  Son  of  God’  (8-^),  ‘Jesus,  Thou  Son 
of  David”  (18"^),  ‘Jesus,  Master’  (17^^);  and  at 
the  hands  of  the  evil  spirits  (T^),  the  people  (18^^) 
and  His  disciples  (24^^)  alike,  ‘Jesus  the  Nazarene  ’ 

2 In  242  the  general  transmission  gives  “the  Lord  Jesus”:  but  this  is 

one  of  the  instances  in  which  it  is  scarcely  possible  not  to  follow  a 
few  “ Western  ” witnesses  in  omitting  a very  strongly  attested  reading. 
This  combination  of  designations  occurs  also  in  the  spurious  ending  of 
Mark  (i6i9),  but  not  elsewhere  in  the  Gospels.  It  becomes,  however, 
quite  frequent  in  Acts:  433  759  gi6  „it.20  1526  196,13,17 

2o2i,24,35  2i13  28^!.  It  might  thus  have  very  well  been  used  by  Luke 
in  his  Gospel  also.  It  is  common  in  the  Epistles. 

3 The  text  is  not  quite  certain  here,  and  there  are  three  ways  of  ren- 
dering it:  (i)  “And  he  said  to  Jesus,  Remember  me”;  (2)  “And  he 
said,  Jesus,  remember  me”;  (3)  “And  he  said.  Lord,  remember  me.” 
The  reading  ‘Jesus’  seems  the  preferable  one;  but  it  is  not  altogether 
clear  that  anarthrous  '’I-qnou  here  may  not  be  the  dative  after  'iXeyev. 
The  uniqueness  of  the  ascription  of  the  simple  ‘ Jesus  ’ as  a form  of 
address,  to  a speaker  in  the  evangelist’s  narrative,  is,  of  course,  favor- 
able to  taking  it  as  a dative.  In  that  case  xopie  would  be  an  instinc- 
tive correction  of  "Irjffoo  mistaken  for  a vocative;  as  in  the  other  case 
it  would  be  an  instinctive  insertion  of  a vocative  “ because  ^Irjffou  here 
was  mistaken  for  the  dative”  (Plummer). 


The  Designations  in  Luke  99 

— whence  it  emerges  that  it  was  by  this  name  that  He 
was  popularly  identified.* 

The  ordinary  forms  of  address  applied  to  Jesus  in 
Luke  are  the  simple  honorifics,  ‘ Teacher,’  ‘ Master,’ 
Ordinary  ‘ Lord,’  employed,  however,  with  a cer- 
Forms  of  tain  discrimination.®  The  Aramaic 
Address  ‘ Rabbi  ’ does  not  occur  in  Luke 

at  all.  Its  common  Greek  rendering,  ‘ Teacher  ’ 
(^dtddaxaXe)  ^ seems  to  be  treated  as  the  current  non- 
committal honorific,  especially  appropriate  on  the  lips 
of  those  who  were  not,  or  at  least  not  yet,  His  dis- 
ciples (7*"  II*®  12^^  i8*«  19^"  8*^  9^^)- 

The  only  exception  to  its  employment  by  this  rule  is 
supplied  by  2i^  where  we  are  told  that  certain  of 
His  disciples  “ asked  Him  saying,  ‘ Teacher,’  ” etc. 
That  it  was  not  thought  inappropriate  as  a form  of  ad- 
dress from  His  disciples  to  Him  is  also  evinced,  how- 
ever, by  the  report  of  His  own  employment  of  it  on 
two  occasions.  He  instructs  His  followers,  in  prepar- 
ing the  last  passover  meal  for  Him,  to  say  to  the  good- 
man  of  the  house,  ‘‘The  Teacher  saith  unto  thee, 
where  is  the  guest-chamber,  where  I shall  eat  the  pass- 
over  with  my  disciples”  (22**);  and  He  tells  them, 
broadly  indeed,  but  no  doubt  with  some,  though  cer- 
tainly remote,  reference  to  Himself  and  them,  that 

^ In  4^^  24^®,  the  form  is  6 Na^aprjv6<$^  as  it  is  in  Mark:  in 
6 Na^apato?^  as  in  Mt,  Jno  and  Acts.  Cf.  Plummer  on  4^4. 

5 There  is  a tendency,  of  course,  to  refer  to  Jesus  where  He  was 
present  in  fact  or  thought  by  the  simple  demonstrative  ouro? 

935  2341  [2q44  232.4,14,23]^  and  this  is  sometimes  contemptuous  ([521] 
^39,49  1^2  1914  [2444]  23^4,14,221,25,38  2348).  So  in  the  Other  evan- 
gelists: Mt  347  g2T  1222  175  2i4o.4i,[38]  2/54^  and  contemptuously,  9^ 
1224  [^1254,55,56]  26®4  [27^^]  274^^  Mk  444  g7  j2^  1 5^®  and  Contemptu- 
ously, 2^  [62,2,3].  Qn  this  depreciatory  ouro<s  see  Meyer  on  739,49. 


lOO  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

“the  disciple  is  not  above  his  teacher;  but  every  one 
when  he  is  perfected  shall  be  as  his  teacher  ” (6^^) . The 
choice  of  the  term  ‘Teacher’  {dtddaxaXoc: ) in  these 
two  passages  appears  to  be  due  to  the  correlative 
“disciples”  occurring  in  each;  and  it  remains  true 
that  ‘ Teacher  ’ ( dtddaxaXe  ) as  a form  of  address  is 
characteristic  in  Luke,  of  non-followers  of  our  Lord.® 
The  place  of  ‘ Teacher  ’ on  the  lips  of  His  followers 
Is  partly  taken  by  a new  term  for  ‘^Master,’  peculiar 
to  Luke  ( iTTtardzrj^  ) which  however 

‘Master'  occurs  only  six  times  (5^ 

17^^),  only  one  of  which  (17^^)  forms 
an  exception  or  quasi-exception  to  the  rule  that  the 
term  indicates  that  the  user  of  it  stands  in  the  closest 
relation  to  Jesus,  and  acknowledges  Him  as  his  Su- 
perior Officer — Chief,  Commander,  Master,  Leader. 
This  quasi-exception  occurs  in  the  case  of  the  ten 
lepers  who,  we  are  told,  lifted  up  their  voices  and 
said,  “ Jesus,  Leader,  have  mercy  on  us.”  Perhaps 
there  is  an  intention  to  convey  the  impression  that 
these  lepers,  formally  at  least,  recognized  the  authority 
of  Jesus  completely.  We  cannot  account  5^  another 
such  exception,  since  the  whole  tone  of  the  narrative 
indicates  that  this  was  not  the  first  call  of  Peter  to 
become  Jesus’  disciple  (cf.  Jno  i^^),  but  his  call  to 
become  Jesus’  constant  companion.  There  is  no  such 
direct  use  of  Jesus  in  Luke  (or  in  Mk)  as  in  Matthew 
of  the  figurative  expression  ‘ Master  of  the  House  ’ 

Teacher’  is  in  3^2  employed  as  an  address  to  John  the  Baptist; 
and  the  Jewish  Rabbis  in  the  temple  are  called  ‘Teachers’  in  2^®. 

When  Wellhausen  on  says  ^^^E-Kiardra  (and  xopte)  is  used 
in  Luke  by  the  disciples;  diddffxaXs  by  others,”  he  is  thus  substan- 
tially right.  Cf.  Plummer  on  5^,  where  the  meaning  of  the  word  is 
discussed. 


lOI 


The  Designations  in  Luke 

' (^ohodeanoTTj^)  ^ although  the  term  occurs  in  parables 
with  reference  to  Him  (13^® 

The  prevailing  form  of  address  to  Jesus  in  Luke  is, 
however,  the  ordinary  Greek  honorific  ‘ Lord  ’ ( xupte ) , 
^ , used,  however,  obviously  as  an  honor- 

^ Addrws  especially  high  connotation.  It 

is  put  upon  the  lips,  indeed,  of  out- 
siders, suitors  for  mercy  (5^^  7®  18^^  19^)  and  possibly 
others  13^^)  ; and  our  Lord’s  own  remark  to 

the  effect  that  some  called  Him  ‘ Lord,  Lord,’  who 
did  not  do  the  things  He  said  (6^®)  shows  that  it 
might  be  insincerely  used  of  Him.  But  this  very 
passage  also  indicates  that  to  address  Him  as  ‘ Lord  ’ 
i^was  to  acknowledge  His  authority  and  involved  sub- 
jection to  His  commandments,  and  accordingly  the 
term  is  represented  as  employed  chiefly  by  His  pro- 
fessed followers  (5®  ii^  12^^  17®"^  22®®’®®’^^). 

Something  of  its  high  implication,  when  so  used,  may 
be  caught  from  5®  in  comparison  with  5^  When  our 
Lord,  having  used  Simon’s  boat  for  a pulpit,  com- 
manded him  to  let  down  his  nets  for  a draught,  Simon 
responded  with  the  respectful  address  which  implied 
that  he  recognized  Jesus  as  his  ‘Superior  Officer’ 
{iTuaTdrrjQ)  ^ “Master,  we  toiled  all  night,  and  took 
nothing:  but  at  Thy  word  I will  let  down  the  nets.” 
But  when  he  saw  the  resultant  miraculous  draught,  he 
fell  at  Jesus’  knees  and  said:  “ Depart  from  me;  for 
I am  a sinful  man,  O Lord  ” — using  now  the  higher 
honorific,  ‘ Lord  ’ ( ) .*  Obviously  the  address 

® Streatfeild,  Self -Interpretation  of  Jesus  Christ,  p.  99  note,  is  clearly 
in  the  wrong  in  supposing  that  the  change  from  intardra  of  v.  5 to 
xvpie  of  V.  8 has  no  significance;  and  the  occasional  interchange  of 
the  terms,  noted  by  Dalman  as  appealed  to  by  Streatfeild,  does  not 


102 


The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 


‘ Lord  ’ on  the  lips  of  Jesus’  followers  was  charged 
with  very  high  significance,  and  this  is  borne  out  in 
its  entire  use. 

Such  a constant  mode  of  address  as  ‘ Lord  ’ by  His 

followers,  naturally  would  beget  the  habit  of  speaking 

,,  ,,  of  Tesus  among  themselves  as  ‘the 

* Lord  * as  an  T j ? ^ r i 

Appellative  Lord  ; and  we  can  feel  no  surprise 

therefore  that  Jesus,  in  giving  them 
instructions  how  to  reply  to  possible  objections  to  their 
taking  the  ass  He  sent  them  for  as  He  was  about  to 
enter  Jerusalem,  placed  this  designation  on  their  lips. 
“ Say,”  He  said,  “ the  Lord  hath  need  of  him  ” ( 19^^)  ; 
and  accordingly  they  said  (v.  34),  “The  Lord  hath 
need  of  him”  (cf.  This  instruction  is 

recorded  by  all  the  Synoptists,  and  the  usage  which 
it  involves  of  the  term  ‘Lord’jof  Jesus  as  an  appella- 
tive designation  might  very  well,  therefore,  have  been 
illustrated  in  the  narratives  of  them  all.  The  copious 
designatory  employment  of  the  title  ‘ Lord  ’ of  Christ, 
however,  is  characteristic  of  Luke.®  It  is  placed  on  the 


interpose  an  obstacle.  Cf.  Godet  on  verse  8 : “ Peter  here  employs  the 
more  religious  expression,  Lord,  which  answers  to  his  actual  feelings  ” ; 
and  Plummer,  verse  8;  “The  change  from  ^raffrara  (see  on  verse  5) 
is  remarkable  and  quite  in  harmony  with  the  change  of  circumstances. 
It  is  the  ‘ Master  ’ whose  orders  must  be  obeyed,  the  ‘ Lord  ’ whose 
holiness  causes  moral  agony  to  the  sinner  (Dan 

9 Cf.  Sven  Herner,  Die  An^endung  des  W ortes  xopto<^  im  N.  T., 
pp.  12,  13:  “In  contrast  with  Matthew  and  Mark,  Luke  speaks  of  Jesus 
by  the  designation  x6pco(^  comparatively  often.  Even  if  7I9.31  10^1 
22^1  24^  be  neglected  as  more  or  less  uncertain  in  the  reading,  and  19^^ 
as  a parallel  to  Mt  21^,  Mk  n^,  there  remain  nevertheless  fourteen 
passages  peculiar  to  Luke  (71^  12-12  1315  jy5,6  jge  1^8,34 

2261,61  24^^)  which  speak  of  Jesus  by  the  designation  of  ‘Lord’:  and 
to  these  may  be  added  the  expressions  ‘the  mother  of  my  Lord’  (i*^) 
and  ‘the  Lord  Christ’  (2II).”  “It  may  be  further  remarked  that 
although  one  of  the  uncertain  passages  enumerated  (24^)  belongs  to 


The  Designations  In  Luke  103 

lips  of  the  disciples  themselves  in  this  designatory  form 
at  24^^*,  and  it  occurs  in  two  passages  in  the  opening 
chapters  of  the  Gospel — in  the  elevated  language  of 
the  angelic  announcement  in  the  combination,  ‘ Christ 
the  Lord’  or  ‘the  anointed  Lord’  (2“),  and  in  the 
response  of  Elisabeth  ( in  which  she  expresses  her 
wondering  awe  that  “ the  mother  of  her  Lord  ” should 
come  to  her.  Obviously  in  such  usages  the  term  con- 
notes a very  high  dignity,  certainly  Messianic  at  the  least. 
It  is  also  employed  of  Himself  by  our  Lord  in  the 
question  He  is  recorded  by  all  the  Synoptists  as  putting 
to  the  scribes  as  to  the  significance  of  David’s  predic- 
tion of  the  Messiah  as  his  ‘Lord’  (20^^®®'^*) — again, 
obviously  with  a high  connotation.  But  the  particu- 
larly significant  fact  in  this  connection  is  its  current 
employment  by  Luke  himself  as  an  alternative  narra- 
tive designation  to  the  simple  ‘ Jesus  ’ jq1,s9,4i  j j39 

1242  J^15  J^5,6  jgo  J^8  22^^’®^).  It  does  not  seem  easy 
to  detect  any  special  significance  in  the  interchange  of 
these  designations;  the  reason  for  the  passage  from 
one  to  the  other  seems  either  purely  literary  or  at  least 
obscure.  The  meaning  of  the  appearance  of  this  nar- 
rative employment  of  the  term  in  Luke  seems,  there- 
fore, to  be  merely  that  in  the  usage  of  Luke  in  his 
own  person  there  emerges  a reflection  of  a usage  evi- 
dently common  among  the  disciples  of  Jesus  from  the 
beginning,  but  not  chancing  to  be  copiously  illustrated 

the  time  when  Christ  was,  though  resurrected,  not  yet  manifested  to 
His  disciples,  and  one  of  the  certain  ones  (24^4)  is  a word  of  the  dis- 
ciples to  whom  the  risen  Lord  had  manifested  Himself,  yet  all  the 
others  fall  in  the  time  before  the  resurrection.  Although  Luke  men- 
tions Jesus,  however,  comparatively  often  by  the  designation  ‘ Lord,* 
this  is  nevertheless  far  from  his  current  designation  of  Him,  as  the 
names  of  ‘Jesus’  and  ‘Christ’  meet  us  112  times.” 


104 


The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

In  the  personal  literary  manner  of  Mark  and  Matthew: 
the  usage,  namely,  of  currently  speaking  of  Jesus  as 
‘ the  Lord.’ 

This  implies,  naturally,  that  Jesus  stood  to  His  dis- 
ciples for  whatever  the  title  ‘ Lord  ’ meant  to  them. 

There  Is  Involved  In  It  certainly  the 
of^Lord^*^  recognition  of  His  Messianic  dignity, 
and  there  Is  Included,  therefore,  the  rec- 
ognition In  Him  of  all  that  they  saw  In  His  Messianic 
dignity.  So  far,  we  suppose,  we  may  be  sure  that,  as 
has  been  suggested.  He  was  thought  of  as  ‘Lord’  In 
contrast  to  the  earthly  potentates  who  were  claiming 
lordship  of  men,  and  especially  In  contrast  with  the 
emperor  In  Rome,  the  ‘ Lord  ’ by  way  of  eminence  In 
all  men’s  mlnds.^°  To  Jesus,  rather  than  to  the  em- 
peror, was  allegiance  due.  But  we  must  not  forget 
that  the  allegiance  expressed  to  Jesus  rested  on  a spir- 
itual basis,  while,  perhaps.  It  Is  going  too  far  to  sup- 
pose that  the  divine  claims  of  the  Imperial  monarch 
were  held  clearly  In  mlnd.^^  The  simplest  thing  to  say 
Is  that  the  term  ‘ Lord  ’ was  applied  to  Jesus  by  Luke 
obviously  with  the  deepest  reverence  and  obviously  as 
the  expression  of  that  reverence. 

Cf.  Dalman,  Words,  330:  “When  the  Christians  called  Jesus 
6 xopto?,  they  will  have  meant  that  He  is  the  true  ‘ divine  Lord  ’ 
in  opposition  to  the  ‘ God  and  Lord  ’ on  the  imperial  throne  of  Rome. 
Luke’s  frequent  use  of  6 xupto<$  is  certainly  intended  in  this  sense. 
The  phrase  Xpiffro?  xbpio<s  used  in  his  Gospel  2I1  (cf.  Acts  2^6)  de- 
fines the  term  Xpiaro^s  in  that  sense  for  the  reader.”  Dalman  is  prob- 
ably thinking  of  “ Luke  ” as  representing  a Gentile  Christian  usage. 
It  is  clear,  on  the  contrary,  that  his  is  simply  an  aboriginal  Christian 
usage — possibly  with  slightly  changing— or  enlarging — content,  but 
with  no  essential  alteration  of  meaning. 

11  On  the  employment  of  xbpto<;  of  the  emperor  and  its  signifi- 
cance see  T.  D.  Woolsey  in  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra  for  1861,  pp.  595-608. 


The  Designations  in  Luke  105 

The  full  height  of  this  reverence  may  be  suggested 
to  us  by  certain  passages  in  which  the  term  ‘ Lord  ’ 
occurs  in  citations  from  the  Old  Testament,  where  its 
reference  is  to  Jehovah,  though  in  the  citations  it  seems 
to  be  applied  to  Jesus.  Like  the  other  Synoptists,  Luke 
cites,  for  instance,  from  Isaiah  the  promise  of  a voice 
crying  in  the  wilderness,  “ Make  ye  ready  the  way  of 
the  Lord,  make  His  paths  straight”  (3^),  and  applies 
it  to  the  coming  of  John  the  Baptist  whom  he  rep- 
resents as  preparing  the  way  for  Jesus’  manifestation. 
As  in  the  case  of  the  other  evangelists,  the  inference 
lies  close  that  by  ‘ the  Lord  ’ here  Luke  means  Jesus, 
^whose  coming  he  thus  identifies  with  the  advent  of 
( Jehovah  and  whose  person  he  seems  to  identify  with 
Jehovah.^**  On  the  other  hand,  in  passages  like 
although  the  language  is  similar,  it  seems  more  natural 
to  understand  the  term  ‘ Lord  ’ as  referring  to  God 
Himself,  and  to  conceive  the  speaker  to  be  thinking  of 
the  coming  of  Jehovah  to  redemption  in  Jesus  without 
necessary  identification  of  the  person  of  Jesus  with 
Jehovah.^®  The  mere  circumstance,  however,  that  the 

12  Cf.  Sven  Herner,  as  cited,  p.  11:  “With  a reference  to  our  discus- 
sion of  the  citation  in  the  passages  in  Matthew  and  Mark  we  hold  it 
most  probable  that  Christ  is  meant,  and  this  view  is  more  easily  main- 
tained in  the  case  of  Luke  than  of  Matthew  because  Luke  compara- 
tively frequently  uses  the  designation  ‘Lord’  of  Jesus.”  Proceeding  to 
discuss  the  parallel  passage,  he  decides  that  there  ‘ Lord  ’ probably 
V refers  to  God  the  Father;  which  appears  just.  It  does  not  follow, 
however,  that  Godet’s  remark  may  not  also  be  accepted : “ In  saying 
the  Lord  Zacharias  can  only  be  thinking  of  the  Messiah:  but  he  could 
not  designate  Him  by  this  name,  unless,  with  Malachi,  he  recognized  in 
His  coming  the  appearing  of  Jehovah  (cf.  ii7,43  2II)” — if  this  can  be 
read  of  the  advent  of  Jehovah  in  His  Representative. 

Hahn  says,  rightly  as  we  think,  at  “Not  to  be  understood  of 
the  Messiah  (Ambr.,  Beda,  Euthym.,  Beng.,  Cast.,  Bisp.,  Schegg, 
Schanz)  but  of  God”;  and  at  “Not  to  be  understood  of  the 


lo6  The  Designatiofis  of  Our  Lord 

reader  Is  led  to  pause  over  such  passages  and  to  con- 
sider whether  they  may  not  intend  by  their  ‘ Lord  ’ — 
who  Is  Jehovah — to  Identify  the  person  of  Jesus  with 
Jehovah,  Is  significant.  We  should  never  lose  from 
sight  the  outstanding  fact  that  to  men  familiar  w^ith 
the  LXX  and  the  usage  of  ‘ Lord  ’ as  the  personal 
name  of  the  Deity  there  Illustrated,  the  tei*m  ‘ Lord  ’ 
was  charged  with  associations  of  deity,  so  that  a habit 
of  speaking  of  Jesus  as  ‘ the  Lord,’  by  way  of  emi- 
nence, such  as  Is  illustrated  by  Luke  and  certainly  was 
current  from  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  proclama- 
tion (19^^),  was  apt  to  carry  with  It  Implications  of 
deity  which,  If  not  rebuked  or  In  some  way  guarded 
against,  must  be  considered  as  receiving  the  sanction 
of  Jesus  Himself. 

The  leading  designations  of  Jesus  in  Luke,  as  In  the 
other  Synoptists,  however,  are,  broadly  speaking,  Mes- 
sianic.  In  other  words.  It  Is  distlnc- 
« Prophet*  tively  as  the  Messiah  that  Luke  sets 
forth  Jesus  and  represents  Him  as  hav- 
ing conceived  of  Himself  and  as  having  been  revered 
by  His  followers.  We  find  in  Luke,  as  In  the  other 
Synoptists,  to  be  sure,  traces  of  a widespread  recogni- 
tion of  Him  as  a prophet  9*’^^).  His  followers 

set  their  hopes  upon  Him  in  that  office  (24^^)  ; and 
Indeed  with  no  uncertainty  He  Himself  assumed  the 

Messiah  (Kiin.,  Ols.,  Bisp.,  Schanz),  but  of  God’';  but,  we  think, 
wrongly  at  “By  the  xOpio^  there  is  here,  just  as  in  the  Old  Test, 
passage,  to  be  understood,  not  the  Messiah  (Kiin.,  Bh,  Haupt)  but 
God,  for  Luke  wishes  to  say  that  in  the  Messiah  God  would  hold  His 
own  advent.”  So  far  as  the  mere  language  goes,  that  might  be  ac- 
cepted: but  the  passage  seems  to  mean  otherwise  (see  Plummer  per 
contra).  Meyer  has  an  excellent  note  on  and  decides  rightly 

also  at  whom  Weiss  properly  follows;  so  also  Plummer. 


107 


The  Designations  in  Luke 

role  of  a prophet  (4-^  13^^’^^).  But  no  more  In  Luke 
than  In  the  other  Synoptlsts  Is  this  particularly  empha- 
sized, and  In  Luke,  too,  the  prophetic  character  Is,  no 
doubt,  conceived  as  part  of  the  Messianic  function, — 
as  Indeed  the  collocation  of  His  prophetic  calling  and 
His  redemption  of  Israel  In  the  thought  of  the  dis- 
ciples going  to  Emmaus  not  obscurely  suggests 
(241^’^',  cf.  also 

Luke  also  records  from  the  mouth  of  the  angel 
announcing  the  birth  of  Jesus  the  new  designation  of 
‘ Saviour  ’ — If  we  can  call  a deslgna- 

‘ Saviour’  tion  new  which  Is  so  plainly  adumbrated 
In  a passage  like  Mt  (cf.  also  Lk 
19^^)  d®  But  this  Is  so  little  un-MessIanIc  that  It  Is 
not  only  connected  with  the  Messianic  prophecies  by 
adjacent  references  (i^h  cf.  2^^  3®),  but  Is  expressly 
defined  as  Messianic  In  the  annunciation  Itself:  “a 
Saviour,  which  Is  Christ  the  Lord”  (2^^).  Like  Mt 
this  passage  clearly  Indicates  that  to  the  circle  In 
which  Jesus  moved  His  coming  as  the  Messiah  was 
connected  with  the  great  series  of  prophecies  which 
promised  the  advent  of  Jehovah  for  the  redemption  of 
His  people,  as  truly  as  with  those  which  predicted  the 
coming  of  the  Davldlc  King.  The  terms,  “ a Saviour, 
which  Is  Christ  the  Lord,”  are.  Indeed,  an  express 
combination  of  the  two  lines  of  prophecy,  and  import 

Cf.  Meyer  on  7^®:  “They  saw  In  this  miracle  a (TTjtietov  of  a 
great  prophet,  and  in  His  appearance  they  saw  the  beginning  of  the 
Messianic  deliverance  (comp.  i6S-79).»  On  the  whole  subject,  cf. 
Stanton,  Jewish  and  Christian  Messiah,  126  seq. 

Cf.  Plummer  in  loc.:  “ Here  first  in  N.  T.  is  aioTTjp  used  of  Christ, 
and  here  only  in  Luke.  Not  in  Matthew  or  Mark,  and  only  once  in 
John  (4^2) ; twice  in  Acts  (s^i  132s) ; and  frequently  in  Titus  and 
2 Peter.” 


io8  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

that  the  Child  who  was  born  in  the  city  of  David  was 
both  the  promised  Redeemer  of  Israel  and  the 
Anointed  King  that  was  to  come.  Question  may  arise, 
indeed,  as  to  how  we  are  to  construe  these  collocated 
designations.  Some^®  would  wish  us  to  take  each  sepa- 
rately, with  an  indefinite  article  to  each : “ There  is 
born  to  you  a Saviour,  who  is  an  Anointed  One,  a 
Lord.”  Others^’’'  suggest  that  at  least  ‘ Messiah  ’ and 
‘Lord’  be  kept  separate:  “There  is  bom  to  you  a 
Deliverer,  who  is  Messiah,  Lord.”  In  either  of  these 
constructions  we  have  three  separate  designations  which 
so  far  explain  one  another:  this  Child  is  at  once  a 
Saviour,  the  promised  Messiah,  and  Sovereign  Lord 
of  men  and  angels — for  it  is  an  angel  who  speaks  these 
words.  The  essential  meaning  cannot  be  far  from  this 
in  any  case.^®  Even  if  we  should  read  “ who  is  Mes- 
siah, the  Lord,  ” or  even  “ who  is  an  anointed  Lord,”^® 
we  have  got  but  little  away  from  this  general  sense: 
in  either  case  what  is  said  is  that  the  Saviour  is  the 
promised  Messiah  and  therefore  entitled  to  our  obe- 
dience as  our  Lord.  Nor  is  much  more  said  if  we 
give  the  phrase  the  utmost  definiteness  possible,  and 
translate,  “ There  is  born  to  you  this  day  in  the  city 
of  David  that  Deliverer  who  is  the  Messiah,  the 
Lord,”’^® — as,  on  the  whole,  we  think  we  ought  to  read 

E.g.  Holtzmann,  Weiss. 

E.g.  Meyer. 

“ In  any  event,”  says  Weiss,  “ it  is  meant  that  this  Deliverer  is  an 
Anointed  Lord,  and  therefore  destined  to  be  the  King  of  Israel.”  But 
Weiss,  who  wishes  to  read  only,  “ a Deliverer  who  is  an  Anointed 
One,  a Lord,”  takes  too  low  a view. 

E.g.  Paulus. 

20  So  Hahn:  “ffwrtjpt  not  *a  Deliverer’  (Paulus,  Meyer,  Bleek, 
Ewald,  Weiss,  Hofmann,  Keil,  Nosgen,  Holtzmann),  but  ^ the  Deliv- 


109 


The  Designations  in  Luke 


It,  In  the  light  of  the  distinction  made  between  the  two 
designations  ‘ Messiah  ’ and  ‘ Lord  ’ in  such  a passage 
as  Acts  2^^  where  Peter  declares  to  the  house  of  Israel 
“^that  God  has  made  Jesus  both  ‘ Lord  ’ and  ‘ Christ.’ 
The  precise  distinction  Intended  to  be  signalized  be- 
^tween  ‘ Christ  ’ and  ‘ Lord  ’ Is,  no  doubt,  difficult  to 
trace : perhaps  there  lies  In  it  a testimony  to  the  wider 
content  of  the  Idea  of  Messlahship  than  that  of  mere 
sovereign  power;  perhaps  a testimony  to  a higher  con- 
notation of  the  term  ‘ Lord  ’ than  that  of  mere  Mes- 
sianic dignity.  In  any  event  there  Is  here  a declaration 
that  In  this  Child  born  In  the  city  of  David,  the  func- 
tions of  Redemption,  Messlahship  and  Supreme  Lord- 
ship  are  united. 

Almost  Immediately  afterward  we  are  told  that  It 
had  been  revealed  to  Simeon  that  “ he  should  not  see 
death  before  he  had  seen  the  Lord’s 
'^Christ’’’'*  Christ”  (2^'’)— an  Old  Testament  ex- 
presslon  (Ps  2“,  cf.  Lk  9“^  Acts  4“®) 
here  applied  to  the  Infant  Jesus,  who  Is  by  It  Identified 
as  the  promised  Messlah.^^  Accordingly  In  announcing 
the  birth  of  this  Child,  who  Is  thus  so  emphatically 
presented  as  the  Messiah,  the  angel  is  represented  as 


erer’  (Luther,  De  Wette).  The  article  is  wanting  not  from  inadver- 
tence (De  Wette),  but  because  it  is  made  superfluous  by  the  succeeding 
relative  clause.  The  sense  is:  ‘the  particular  Deliverer,  who’  . . . 
This  Deliverer  is  characterized  by  the  Xptffrd?  xopio<$  as  the  prom- 
ised Messiah.  We  are  not  to  explain:  ‘a  Messiah,  a Lord  ’ (Holtzmann)  ; 
and  not:  ‘one  anointed  to  Lordship’  (Paulus)  ; but  the  two  expres- 
sions are  two  separate  designations  of  the  expected  Messiah  (cf.  Acts 
2^^)  :Xpi(TT()<;  the  then  popularly  current  name  of  the  Messiah;  xopto?, 
the  designation  of  His  Sovereign  dignity.” 

21  Hahn,  “God’s  chosen  and  appointed  Messiah”;  Meyer,  “God’s 
destined  and  sent  Messiah  ” ; Weiss,  “ God’s  anointed  and  sent 
Messiah.” 


I lO 


The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

describing  Him  as  ‘ the  Son  of  the  Most  High  God,’ 
to  whom  should  be  given  the  throne  of  His  father 
David,  for  an  everlasting  dominion  (i^^)  ; and  as  ex- 
plaining the  Divine  Sonship  of  this  Holy  Child^^  as 
due  to,  or  rather  as  evidenced  b}^.  His  supernatural 
birth  The  latter  of  these  two  declarations  is 

clearly  the  explanation  of  the  former.  The  angel  had 
promised  Mary  that  she  should  bring  forth  a son  who 
should  rightly  bear  the  great  name  of  the  ‘ Son  of  the 
Most  High  God,’  and  he  now  explains  that  this  Holy 
Son  of  hers  shall  be  a supernatural  product,  and  should 
by  His  supernatural  advent  be  witnessed  as  rightly 
bearing  the  name  of  ‘ Son  of  God.’  That  the  title 
‘ Son  of  God  ’ bears  in  it  a Messianic  implication  is 
clear  from  the  functions  ascribed  in  verses  33,  34  to  the 
child  so  designated,  but  that  this  Messiah  was  con- 
ceived as  something  more  than  human  appears  to  be 
implied  in  the  connection  of  His  claim  upon  the  title 
of  ‘ Son  of  God  ’ with  the  supernaturalness  of  His  birth. 
Perhaps  it  is  not  reading  too  much  into  the  passage 
to  say  that  His  preexistence  and  heavenly  descent  are 
asserted, — certainly  His  heavenly,  or  supernatural, 
origin  is  asserted.  This  ‘ Son  ’ is  not  merely  to  be  at- 
tended with  supernatural  assistance  and  so  to  exhibit 
supernatural  gifts:  He  is  of  supernatural  origin,  and 
therefore  so  far  of  supernatural  nature.  Already  in 
the  opening  chapters  of  his  Gospel,  devoted  to  an  ac- 
count of  the  birth  and  infancy  of  Jesus,  therefore,  Luke 
makes  it  plain  that  the  Jesus  whose  history  he  is  to 
recount  was  first  of  all  the  Messiah  of  God,  and  as 

22  So  {not,  that  which  is  begotten  shall  be  called  holy,  the  Son  of 
God)  Bengel,  Bleek,  Meyer,  Weiss,  Holtzmann,  Godet,  Hahn. 


Ill 


The  Designations  in  Luke 

such  was  of  supernatural  origin  and  therefore  holy,  was 
to  establish  the  throne  of  David  in  perpetuity,  and  was 
to  be  recognized  as  Lord  of  men  and  angels. 

In  accordance  with  these  declarations,  recorded  In 
the  opening  of  the  Gospel,  Luke  tells  us  that  the  evil 
spirits  knew  Jesus  to  be  ‘ the  Christ’  and  greeted  Him 
by  the  title  ‘Son  of  God’  (4^^),  and  records  Peter’s 
great  confession  in  the  form  of  “ Thou  art  the  Christ 
of  God”  (9^®),  and  Jesus’  ready  acceptance  of  it,  as 
also  His  acquiescence  in  the  ascription  of  the  title  of 
Messiah,  ‘ Christ,’  to  Him  by  Plis  enemies  (‘  the 
Christ,’  22®’^,  cf.  23^^  ‘Christ  a King,’  23^).  Such 
an  ascription  of  the  title  ‘ Christ  ’ to  Him  by  His  ene- 
mies (22^^  23-’^^’^^)  is  the  best  of  all  proofs  that  it  was 
commonly  employed  of  Him  by  Llis  followers.  But 
the  significant  fact  for  us  is  that  in  accepting  it  at  their 
hands  Jesus  claims  it  for  Himself  (22®'  23*).  We  are 
not  surprised,  therefore,  to  find  Him  using  it  of  Him- 
self when,  after  His  resurrection.  He  expounded  from 
Scripture  to  His  followers  the  doctrine  of  the  Suffering 
Messiah  and  applied  it  to  Himself  (24"®’^®),  even  as 
He  had  at  an  earlier  point  expounded  to  the  scribes 
(20^^)  the  doctrine  of  the  Reigning  Messiah  with  an 
equally  clear  application  of  it  to  Himself.  He  who 
was  David’s  ‘ Lord  ’ as  truly  as  his  ‘ Son  ’ was  to 
enter  upon  His  Lordship  only  through  suffering,  a suf- 
fering which  should  lay  the  basis  of  a preachment  in 
His  name  of  repentance  and  remission  of  sins  (24^®). 
Here  again  is  the  Saviour,  who  is  the  Messiah,  the 
Lord:  and  the  Gospel  ends  much  on  the  same  note 
on  which  it  began. 

The  royal  dignity  of  this  ‘Anointed  King’  (23“)  is 


I 12 


The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

of  course  dwelt  upon  in  Luke  as  In  the  other  Synoptics. 

But  the  precise  term  ‘ King  ’ Is  not  of 
‘The  King’  frequent  occurrence.  His  disciples  as 

He  entered  Jerusalem  on  the  ass’s  colt 
acclaimed  Him  as  “ the  King  that  cometh  In  the  name 
of  the  Lord  ” (19^^),  and  when  the  Pharisees  appealed 
to  Him  to  rebuke  them  therefor — employing  the  sim- 
ple formula  of  respect,  ‘ Teacher,’  In  addressing  Him 
and  thereby  repudiating  His  Messianic  claim  by  the 
contrast  of  this  address  with  the  title  of  ‘ King  ’ — 
Jesus  was  so  far  from  yielding  to  their  request  that 
He  declared  that  If  His  disciples  held  their  peace  the 
very  stones  would  cry  out  and  recognize  Him  as  the 
Messianic  sovereign  (cf.  Lk  3®,  Mt  3®).  Similarly, 
when  the  Jews  accused  Him  to  Pilate  as  representing 
Himself  to  be  “Christ,  a King”  (23“),*^  and  that 
governor  accordingly  demanded  of  Him  whether  He 
was  ‘ the  King  of  the  Jews,’  our  Lord  was  so  far  from 
denying  the  ascription  that  He  expressly  accepted  the 
designation  (23^),  and  thus  brought  It  about  that  He 
was  mocked  on  the  cross  by  this  title,  and  had  It  set 
over  His  head  (23^^’^®).  The  equivalent  title  ‘Son 
of  David  ’ also  Is  recorded  as  having  been  given  Him 
by  an  applicant  for  His  mercy  as  a recognition  of  His 
authority  to  heal  (18^®’^^,  cf.  means 

repudiated  when  ) Jesus  explained  that  He 

was  something  much  more  than  David’s  son. 

23  So  Holtzmann,  Weiss  and  others.  Weiss:  ‘“King  Messiah,’  or 

more  naturally,  ‘Messiah,  a King’  (cf.  on  2^^),  so  that  the  political 
significance  of  the  Messianic  title  expressly  explained  is  made  to  tell.” 
That  is  to  say,  Jesus  has  declared  Himself  to  be  ‘ Christ,’  which  is  the 
same  as  to  say  ‘ King.’  The  term  ‘ Christ  ’ is  employed  appellatively, 
but  so  that  it  might  easily  be  taken  as  a proper  name,  as  it  was  taken 
(see  Matthew)  by  Pilate.  Hahn  less  naturally  wishes  to  read  “an 
anointed  Kine.”  It  would  be  more  natural  to  take  ‘Christ’  as  a 


The  Designations  in  Luke  113 

In  the  midst  of  the  designations  we  have  somewhat 
rapidly  adduced,  clustering  around  the  central  title 
‘ Christ,’  there  is  one  which  we  should 

* God’s  Elect  ’ not  pass  over  unnoticed  because  it  has 
not  met  us  heretofore.  The  mocking 
Jews,  scoffing  at  Jesus  as  He  hung  on  the  cross,  are 
represented  as  flinging  in  His  face  His  claim  to  be 
‘the  Christ  of  God,  His  Chosen^  (23^^).  The  same 
designation  occurs  in  the  account  of  the  transfiguration, 
where  the  voice  from  heaven  is  represented  by  Luke 
as  declaring  of  Jesus,  “ This  is  my  Son,  my  Chosen  ’’ 
(9^^).  No  doubt  the  Greek  is  not  quite  the  same  in 
each  instance : b exXexroQ  of  the  one  is  replaced  by 
6 exXsXeyfj.ivo(:  in  the  other.^^  But  doubtless  the  under- 
lying Messianic  title  is  the  same  in  both  instances.  It 
is  rooted  in  Isaiah  42^  “ Behold  my  servant  whom  I 
uphold;  my  chosen  in  whom  my  soul  delighteth,”  etc. 
(where  the  parallel  terms  are  o ;ra?c  and  blxXexrb^)^ 
and  emerges  into  view  even  in  pre-Christian  Jewish 
usage  (Enoch  40^  45^  53®  39^,  etc.).^®  The  conception 
seems  to  be  not  essentially  different  from  a designation 
which  has  already  met  us  in  Mark  (i^^)  and  which 
occurs  also  in  the  parallel  passage  of  Luke  (4^^),  but 
elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament  only  at  Jno  6®^ — ‘ the 
Holy  One  of  God.’  For  it  does  not  seem  likely  that 
‘ G d’s  epithet,  in  the  first  instance  at  least, 

\Holy°oL’  refers  to  the  moral  purity  of  the  Mes- 
siah,^® but  rather  probable  that  it  des- 
ignates Him  as  One  whom  God  has  “ separated  out, 

24  Cf.  on  these  terms  and  on  the  general  matter,  W.  C.  Allen,  Hast- 
ings’ D.  C.  G.,  I.  308. 

2^  Cf.  Charles,  Book  of  Enoch,  p.  112;  Bousset,  Die  Religion  des 
Judentums,  p.  249;  Schurer,  Je<vdsh  People,  etc,,  II.  2.  p.  158. 

23  So  Keil  on  Lk  4®^. 


1 14  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

equipped  and  dedicated  to  His  service, in  a word 
as  ‘ the  Consecrated  One.’  In  this  understanding  of 
it,  it  stands  in  close  relation  to  the  epithet,  ‘ the  Elect 
One,’  and  unites  with  it  in  emphasizing  the  unique 
loftiness  of  the  Messianic  office.  At  the  same  time  it 
seems  difficult  to  believe  that  there  is  no  implication  of 
moral  purity,  or  perhaps  we  would  better  say  moral 
exaltation,  in  the  epithet,  as  used  whether  by  Peter 
(Jno  6^’^)  or  by  the  demoniacs  (Mk  Lk  4^^),  al- 
though this  reference  may  be  secondary.  It  is  scarcely 
conceivable  that  the  demons  could  recognize  a mere 
official-standing  on  sight  (Mk  3^^),  while  the  contrast 
between  the  moral  perfection  or  exalted  nature  of 

27  Xhis  language  is  borrowed  from  Holtzmann,  Hand-Corn.,  p.  76: 
“ The  demon  recognizes  in  Him  the  Holy  One  of  God,  i.e.,  Him  whom 
God  has  separated  out,  equipped  and  dedicated  to  His  service  (cf.  Jno 
669  io36 — the  ‘Elect  One’  of  the  Book  of  Enoch),  whom  the  demoniacs 
(Mk  3I1)  immediately  recognize  and  fear  as  such:  for  the  Messiah’s 
task  is  to  judge  and  destroy  the  demons  (the  evil  spirit  speaks  in  the 
name  of  his  fellows,  too,  ‘us’).  They  divine,  therefore,  at  once  Jesus’ 
greatness  and  their  own  fate.”  In  this  view  it  is  not  the  moral  purity 
Vof  Jesus  over  against  their  wickedness  that  the  demons  divine;  but 
the  official  task  of  Jesus  which  they  are  aware  of.  Similarly  Ernst 
Issel,  Der  Begrijf  der  Heiligkeit  im  N.  T.,  1887,  p.  67  seq.:  “In  Mk 
cf.  Lk  4^^,  we  have  the  most  original  application  of  the  notion  [of 
holiness]  to  Jesus.  The  title  ‘the  Holy  One  of  God’  is  clearly  a 
well  known  one,  on  hearing  which  no  one  could  be  in  doubt  who  was 
meant.  The  same  evangelist  [Mk],  at  3I1,  opens  the  way  to  under- 
standing it  by  recording  that  the  demons  cried  out  ‘ Thou  art  the  Son 
of  God.’  That,  however,  is  the  title  of  the  theocratic  King  . . . 

In  the  title  of  the  theocratic  ruler,  the  eye  is  just  as  little  directed  by 
the  ‘ holy  ’ to  ethical  perfection  as  in  the  expression  ‘ Son  of  God.’ 
The  Messiah  is  ‘the  Holy  One  of  God,’  as  He  whom  the  Father  has 
sanctified,  Jno  10^®,  that  is,  as  He  whom  God  has  chosen  and  endowed 
for  His  special  possession  and  service.  There  speaks  for  this  also  the 
designation  ‘ the  Chosen  One,’  Lk  23^®  9^®.  To  this  election  to  God’s 
possession  and  service  limits  itself  also  the  designation  in  Lk  1^®  . . . 
and  the  representation  of  Jesus  in  the  Temple,  Lk  2-^  . . 


The  Desiznations  in  Luke 


115 


Jesus  and  their  uncleanness  may  be  presumed  to  have 
obtruded  itself  upon  their  consciousness,  whenever  they 
were  brought  into  His  presence.^^  Along  with  these 
titles  we  must  note  also  that  Luke,  too,  makes  use  of 
the  title  ‘ the  Beloved,’  though  only  at  the  baptism  of 
our  Lord  (3^^),  replacing  it  at  the  transfiguration  by 
‘ the  Chosen  One  ’ (9^^),  and  thus  exhibiting  the  essen- 
tial synonymy  of  the  two.^® 

It  may  be  profitable  to  recall  at  this  point  that  the  epi- 
thet ‘ holy  ’ is  applied  to  our  Lord  also  at  the  annun- 

, ciation  of  His  birth  by  the  angel,  when 
Meaning  o£  . 1 • 1 1 • , • 

‘Holy’  explained  that  it  was  the  circum- 

stance that  Llis  birth  was  not  according 
to  nature,  but  due  to  the  coming  down  upon  Mary  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  and  the  overshadowing  of  her  by  the 
power  of  the  Most  High,  which  justified  the  Holy 
Thing  which  was  being  begotten  in  being  called  ‘ the 
Son  of  God’  The  epithet  is  not  elsewhere 

applied  to  Jesus  in  this  Gospel,  except  in  2^^  where 
the  precept  of  the  law  is  quoted  in  reference  to  Llim, 
that  “ every  male  that  openeth  the  wom^b  shall  be 
Xcalled  holy  to  the  Lord  ” — where  it  is  obviously  the 
X, conception  of  consecration  which  is  prominent.  In  the 
present  passage,  however,  it  seems  equally  plain  that  it 
is  not  the  notion  of  being  set  apart  for  God  so  much 
^as  that  of  being  in  Himself  worthy  of  reverence  and 
calling  out  veneration  which  is  prominent.  He  who 
is  thus  supernaturally  born  is  “ holy  ” in  the  sense  that 
He  brings  with  Him  something  of  the  superhuman 

28  On  the  title  ‘ Holy  One  of  God  ’ see  J.  B.  Bristow,  Hastings’ 
D.  C.  G.,  I.  730-31.  He  thinks  it  connects  Jesus  with  God  the  Holy 
One;  but  in  these  passages  refers  particularly  to  Christ’s  dedication  to 
a mission. 

28  Cf.  J.  A.  Robinson,  as  cited,  esp.  Eph.,  pp.  229  seq. 


ii6  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

character  belonging  to  His  origin,  and  is  thus  not  set 
apart  among  men,  but  is  by  nature  distinguished  from 
men — shall  we  not  say,  “separate  from  sinners 
Nevertheless,  the  title  ‘ Son  of  God  ’ as  applied  to  our 
Lord  in  Luke  is  closely  connected  with  His  Messianic 
office : though,  of  course,  it  is  not  limited  to  that  office 
in  its  implications.  It  occurs  in  this  precise  form  but 
seldom.  Besides  the  declaration  of  the  announcing 
angel  that  He  shall  be  called  the  ‘ Son  of  the  Most 
High’  ( — evidently  with  a Messianic  connotation, 
as  the  subsequent  context  shows,  but  by  no  means 
equally  evidently  with  none  but  a human  connotation, 
as  also  the  subsequent  context  assures  us  — it 

occurs  only  in  the  narrative  of  the  Temptation,  on  the 
lips  of  Satan  (4^’^),®^  and  elsewhere  on  the  lips  of 
evil  spirits  8^®  ‘Son  of  the  Most  High  God’) 

who  knew  He  was  the  Christ,  and  in  the  mouth  of 
His  judges  when  they  adjured  Him  to  tell  whether 
He  were  ‘ the  Christ,’  and  on  His  answering  that  they 
should  from  thenceforth  see  Him,  ‘ the  Son  of  Man,’ 
seated  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  demanded  afresh, 
“ Art  thou,  then,  the  Son  of  God?  ” (22’^^).^’^  It  seems 
clear,  indeed,  from  these  passages  that  the  title  ‘ Son 
of  God  ’ was  conceived  as  a Messianic  title,  and  so 
far  as  the  synonym  of  the  simple  ‘ Christ  ’ ; but  it  is 

30  Knowling,  The  Testimony  of  St.  Paul  to  Christ,  1905,  p.  314, 
thinks  the  epithet  here  means  frankly  “ sinlessness  ” (cf.  Plummer  in 
loc.).  Perhaps,  however,  while  this  implication  of  “holiness”  cannot 
be  excluded,  it  is  going  too  far  to  find  it  prominent  here. 

31  Cf.  Plummer  in  loc.:  “ The  reference  is  to  the  relation  to  God 
rather  than  to  the  office  of  the  Messiah.  The  emphatic  word  is  ul6(^.” 

32  Cf.  Plummer  in  loc.:  “In  the  allusion  to  Daniel  713  they  recognize 
a claim  to  divinity,  and  they  translate  6 ulu?  zoo  dvOpconoo  into  6 uld<$ 
TOO  dsoo.  But  it  is  not  clear  whether  by  the  latter  they  mean  the 
Messiah  or  something  higher.” 


The  Designations  in  Luke  117 

difficult  not  to  gather  from  them  also  that  It  gave 
expression  Vj  a higher  Messianic  conception  than  was 
conveyed  by  the  simple  ‘ Christ.’  The  brief  conversa- 
tion recorded  as  taking  place  between  our  Lord  and 
His  judges  seems  to  have,  in  fact,  the  precise  purport 
that  in  accepting  the  designation  of  ‘ the  Christ  ’ He 
does  so  in  such  a manner  as  to  pour  Into  it  a higher 
content  than  His  judges  were  willing  to  accord  to  it 
— a higher  content  which  they  felt  was  more  appro- 
priately expressed  by  another  title, — the  ‘ Son  of  God.’ 
Whence  it  seems  to  follow  that  ‘ Son  of  God,’  while  a 
current  Messianic  designation,  was  a Messianic  desig- 
nation charged  with  a higher  connotation  than  merely 
that  of  the  Messianic  King — a conclusion  we  have  al- 
ready drawn  from  1 22.35  33 

The  higher  connotation  of  Sonship  to  God  is,  how- 
ever, in  Luke,  as  in  the  other  Synoptists,  most  clearly 
expressed  by  the  undefined  term  ‘ Son.’ 

‘The  Son*  Luke,  as  well  as  the  others,  records 
the  divine  proclamation  of  the  Sonship 
of  Jesus  from  heaven,  on  the  occasion  as  well  of  His 
baptism  as  of  His  transfiguration : “ Thou  art  my 
Son,  the  Beloved;  in  thee  I am  well  pleased”  (3^^), 
“This  is  my  Son,  the  Chosen”  (9^^)  : and  gives  us 
the  parable  in  which  Jesus,  with  evident  reference  to 
Himself  (20^^’^^),  talks  of  the  wicked  husbandmen,  to 
whom,  after  they  had  evil-entreated  his  servants,  the 
lord  of  the  vineyard  sent  in  the  end  his  ‘ beloved  son  ’ 
who  was  the  heir.  Luke  also  records  a number  of 

This  seems  to  be  the  truth  in  the  view  of  such  commentators  as 
Godet  and  Hahn,  as  over  against  those  who,  like  Weiss,  insist  that 
* Son  of  God  ’ is  " only  another  Messianic  designation.”  It  is  only 
another  Messianic  designation;  but  a Messianic  designation  charged 
with  a higher  Messianic  conception  as  its  content. 


ii8  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

those  pregnant  sayings  in  which  Jesus  appeals  to  God 
as  in  a unique  sense  His  ‘ Father  and  he  begins  this 
series  of  pregnant  sayings  at  so  early  a period  as  to 
make  it  clear  to  us  that  it  represents  a unique  filial  con- 
sciousness coeval  with  the  dawn  of  our  Lord’s  intelli- 
gence. Already  in  His  earliest  youth  He  could  speak 
of  being  “ in  His  Father’s  house  ” as  His  natural  place 
of  abode  even  as  in  later  life  He  lived  in  con- 

stant communion  with  the  Father  ( 23^^’^®), 
and  equally  naturally  spoke  of  “ the  kingdom  His 
Father  had  appointed  Him”  (22^^),  and  at  the  end 
spoke  of  His  readiness  to  send  forth  “ the  promise  of 
His  Father”  (24^^).  The  glory  He  expected  to  enter, 
It  is  to  be  observed,  was  no  less  His  own  than  His 
Father’s  glory  (22“^).  But  above  all,  Luke  records 
for  us  that  remarkable  passage  in  which  our 

Lord  declares  the  perfect  mutual  knowledge  which  ex- 
ists between  the  ‘ Father  ’ and  ‘ Son,’  by  virtue  of  which 
the  ‘ Son  ’ is  constituted  the  sole  adequate  revealer  of 
the  ‘ Father  ’ — that  ‘ Son  ’ to  whom  all  things  were 
declared  by  His  ‘ Father’:  on  the  basis  of  which  He 
announces  that  the  things  seen  and  heard  in  Him  are 
the  things  which  prophets  and  kings  have  desired  to 
see  and  hear  and  have  not.  The  phraseology  in  which 
Luke  repeats  this  great  saying  differs  slightly  from  that 
found  in  Matthew.  But  the  two  evangelists  agree  in 
all  that  is  essential.  In  both  It  Is  unlimitedly  “ all 
things  ” that  are  said  to  have  been  delivered  by  the 
‘ Father  ’ to  the  ‘ Son,’  so  that  God  Is  affirmed  to  hold 
back  nothing,  but  to  share  all  that  He  has  with  the 

24  Cf.  Plummer  in  loc.:  “ It  is  notable  that  the  first  recorded  words 
of  the  Messiah  are  an  expression  of  His  Divine  Sonship  as  man;  and 
His  question  implies  that  they  knew  it,  or  ought  to  know  it.” 


The  Designations  in  Luke  119 

‘ Son.’^®  In  both  the  intimate  knowledge  of  the  ‘ Father  ’ 
and  ‘ Son  ’ of  each  other  is  affirmed  to  be  alike  com- 
plete, exhaustive  and  unbrokenly  continuous.  In  both 
the  ‘ Son  ’ is  represented  to  be  the  sole  source  of  knowl- 
edge of  God.  But  in  Luke  it  is  said,  not  that  the 
Father  ’ and  ‘ Son  ’ know  each  other,  but  that  each 
knows  “ what  the  other  is,”  that  is  to  say,  all  that  each 
is.  It  would  be  difficult  to  frame  a statement  which 
could  more  sharply  assert  the  essential  deity  of  the 
‘ Son.’3® 

Our  Lord’s  own  favorite  designation  of  Himself  is, 
however,  in  Luke  as  in  the  other  Synoptists,  ‘ the  Son 
of  Man  ’ ; and  as  in  the  other  Synop- 
‘SonofMan’  designation  is  in  Luke  exclu- 

sively a self-designation  of  Jesus’  own. 
For  obviously  when  the  angel  at  the  empty  tomb  is 
represented  as  saying,  “ Remember  how  He  spake  unto 

35  The  emphasis  is  on  the  unlimited  ndvra]  cf.  Hahn:  “Jesus  gives 
expression  accordingly  primarily  to  the  general  idea,  that  God  has 
held  back  nothing  for  Himself,  but  has  made  the  Son  participant  in  all 
that  is  peculiar  to  Himself.  These  first  words  form  the  ground  for 
what  follows.  The  emphasis  in  them  is  not  on  the  fxot  (Weiss),  nor 
on  the  i)7td  rou  7carp6<$  (Hofmann),  but  on  Trdvra.” 

Cf.  Plummer  in  loc.:  “It  is  impossible  upon  any  principles  of 
criticism  to  question  its  genuineness,  or  its  right  to  be  regarded  as 
among  the  earliest  materials  made  use  of  by  the  Evangelists.  And  it 
contains  the  whole  of  the  Christology  of  the  Fourth  Gospel.  It  is  like 
‘an  aerolite  from  the  Johannine  heaven’  (Hase,  Gesch,  Jesu,  p.  527); 
and  for  that  very  reason  causes  perplexity  to  those  who  deny  the  soli- 
darity between  the  Johannine  heaven  and  the  Synoptic  earth.”  It  should 
be  compared  with  the  following  passages:  Jno  3^^  6^®  8^®  lo^s.so 
i615  176,10^  and  cf.  further,  Sanday,  Fourth  Gospel,  p.  109;  Keim  Jes. 
of  Naz.,  IV.  63  referred  to  by  Plummer.  Godet  says  strikingly  that 
Jesus’  words  here  “become  an  echo  of  the  joys  of  His  eternal  genera- 
tion.” He  means  doubtless  that  the  continuous  interchange  of  perfect 
mutual  knowledge  here  set  forth  is  a reflection  of  the  essential  relation 
of  Father  and  Son  to  one  another. 


120 


The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

you  when  He  was  yet  in  Galilee,  saying  that  the  Son  of 
Man  must  be  delivered  up  into  the  hands  of  sinful 
men,  and  be  crucified  and  the  third  day  rise  again  ” 
(24'^), — this  is  not  an  instance  of  the  employment  of 
this  title  by  another  than  Jesus,  but  only  another  at- 
tribution of  it  to  Jesus.  The  title  occurs  in  Luke  about 
twenty-five  times, and  in  the  same  collocations  and 
with  the  same  import  as  in  the  other  Synoptists.  If 
we  attempt,  therefore,  to  derive  from  the  substance 
of  the  passages  in  which  it  is  employed  a notion  of  the 
conception  which  was  attached  to  it,  we  arrive  at  the 
same  conclusion  as  in  the  case  of  the  other  Synoptists. 
In  Luke,  the  purpose  of  the  coming  of  the  ‘ Son  of 
Man  ’ is  declared  in  the  form,  “ The  Son  of  Man  came 
to  seek  and  to  save  that  which  was  lost”  (19^®).  Ac- 
cordingly human  destiny  is  connected  absolutely  with 
the  relations  of  men  to  Him.  Those  are  blessed  whom 
men  hate  and  ostracise  and  reproach,  casting  out  their 
name  as  evil,  if  it  be  for  the  ‘ Son  of  Man’s  ’ sake 
(6“^).  For  everyone  who  shall  confess  Him  before 
men,  him  shall  the  ‘ Son  of  Man  ’ confess  before  the 
angels  of  God  (12®);  and  on  the  other  hand  every 
one  who  denies  the  ‘ Son  of  Man  ’ in  the  presence  of 
men  shall  be  denied  in  the  presence  of  the  angels  of 
God  (12®),  and  whosoever  shall  be  ashamed  of  the 
‘ Son  of  Man  ’ and  of  His  words,  of  him  shall  the 
‘ Son  of  Man  ’ be  ashamed  when  He  comes  in  His 
own  glory  and  that  of  the  Father  and  of  the  holy 
angels  (9^®).  That  nevertheless  blasphemy  against 
the  ‘ Son  of  Man  ’ may  be  forgiven  as  blasphemy 
against  the  Spirit  may  not  (12^^),  doubtless  belongs  to 

3T  ^24  56.22  y34  g22,26,44,68  u30  128, 10,40  iy22,24,26,30  jgS.Sl  j^lO 

2i27,36  2222,48,69  [24T], 


I2I 


The  Designations  in  Luke 

the  humility  of  His  earthly  life  before  He  has  come 
in  His  glory.  For  in  this  life  He  comports  Himself 
like  other  men,  eating  and  drinking  (7^^),  passing  a 
hard  and  suffering  existence  (9^^),  and  so  fulfilling  the 
Scriptures  Meanwhile,  however.  He  ex- 

ercises even  on  earth  the  authority  to  regulate  religious 
observances  (6^)  and  to  forgive  sins  (5^^).  In  other 
words,  the  sufferings  He  endures  (9^^  22^^)  are  not 
the  result  of  fate  or  chance,  and  do  not  belong  to  Him 
by  right,  but  are  voluntarily  undertaken  as  part  of  His 
mission  17^®  24'^).  They  issue  in  death  in- 

deed (9^^  18"^  22^^  24"^),  but  after  death  comes  resur- 
rection (9^^  18^^  24"^);  and  after  resurrection,  in 

its  own  good  time,  a return  in  His  appropriate  glory 
(22®^  9^®  12^^*  1^22,24  jg8  2j27  22®^).  The  humiliation 
over,  at  once  the  ‘ Son  of  Man  ’ is  seated  at  the  right 
hand  of  the  power  of  God  (22®^),  and  when  He  comes 
again  He  will  come  “ in  a cloud  with  great  power  and 
glory”  (21^^), — a glory  described  as  “ His  own  glory, 
and  the  glory  of  His  Father  and  of  the  holy  angels  ” 
(9^®).  The  suddenness  of  this  coming  is  adverted  to 
(12^^  jy22-24,26,3o^  ^ main  fact  emphasized,  that 

it  is  in  point  of  significance  the  day  of  judgment,  when 
the  destinies  of  men  shall  be  finally  assigned  them  by 
the  ‘ Son  of  Man  ’ (21^®  12®  9^®)  : destinies  which  shall 
be  determined  according  to  the  attitude  which  each  has 
occupied  towards  the  ‘ Son  of  Man  ’ on  earth  (12®  (f^) . 
To  all  His  enemies  it  is  therefore  a day  of  vengeance 
(18®),  and  only  as  one  prevails  to  stand  before  the 
‘ Son  of  Man  ’ can  he  hope  to  escape  the  dread  which 
His  coming  brings  to  the  earth  (12^®).  The  picture, 
it  will  be  seen,  is  the  picture  of  a Redeemer  and  Ad- 
juster who  comes  in  humiliation  to  save,  and  returns 


122 


The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

in  glory  to  gather  up  the  results  of  His  work  and 
finally  to  adjust  the  issues  of  the  historical  development 
of  the  world.  Whence  does  He  come  to  save?  There 
is  no  plain  declaration.  We  are  left  to  infer  it  from 
the  obvious  connection  of  the  title  with  the  oracle  of 
Daniel  7^^,  from  the  more  narrative  portions  of  the 
Gospel,  as  e.  g.,  the  opening  chapters  where  the  super- 
natural birth  of  Jesus  is  set  forth  in  detail  and  with 
all  its  implications,  and  from  the  very  clear  suggestion 
that  the  whole  career  of  the  ‘ Son  of  Man,’  in  its 
earthly  manifestation  and  its  subsequent  glory  alike, 
is  of  a piece  and  is  the  outworking  of  a definite  plan 
of  action  held  clearly  in  His  own  mind  from  the 
first  and  carried  firmly  out  in  every  detail  of  His 
living. 

The  sense  of  His  mission  which  is  thus  inherent  In 
the  favorite  Messianic  designation  He  applied  to  Hlm- 
, , self  finds  expression  also  In  other  forms 

Tcsiis^  • ^ 

Mission  locution  which  Luke  reports  our 

Lord  as  employing.  Thus,  for  ex- 
ample, He  Is  reported  as  speaking  of  Himself  repeat- 
edly as  “ coming  ” with  obvious  pregnancy  of  meaning, 
possibly  with  some  reference  to  the  expectation  of  the 
Messianic  coming  which  found  embodiment  In  the  des- 
ignation of  the  Messiah  as  ‘ the  One  to  Come,’ — a des- 
ignation In  Luke  also  reported  as  applied  to  Jesus 
hypothetically  by  John  the  Baptist  (7^^’“®), — but  cer- 
tainly with  Its  chief  Implication  In  a profound  sense  of 
His  mission  ([3^®]  4^^  5^^  7^^  [cf.  7^^  of  John  the  Bap- 
tist], 19^^),  and  possibly  with  some  contrast  In 
mind  with  His  second  coming  (9“®  [12^®  18®  21^’^). 

Without  essential  difference  of  meaning  this  “ coming  ” 
is  Interchanged  with  “ being  sent  ” — the  author  of  the 


The  Designations  in  Luke  123 

“ mission  ” being  thus  more  clearly  indicated  as  God. 
Thus  Luke  varies  Mark’s  language  (i^^)  in  recording 
our  Lord’s  declaration  that  “ He  had  come  forth  ” spe- 
cifically to  preach,  by  giving  it  rather:  “ for  there- 
fore was  He  sent”  (4^^) — plainly  indicating  that 
“ came  ” and  “ was  sent  ” alike  refer  to  His  divine 
mission.^®  Possibly  in  this  variation  there  is  an  allusion 
to  the  passage  from  Isaiah  which  Jesus  read  in  the 
synagogue  at  Nazareth  (cf.  Lk  4^®),  but  in  any  event 
the  term  is  unambiguous,  and  is  elsewhere  repeated  (9^^ 
10^^),  and  from  it  we  may  at  least  learn  that  according 
to  the  representation  in  Luke  also  Jesus  prosecuted  His 
work  on  earth  under  a sense  of  performing  step  by 
step  a task  which  had  been  given  Him  to  do  and  which 
He  had  come  into  the  world  to  perform. 

We  need  call  attention  only  in  passing  to  the  record 
by  Luke  also  of  Jesus’  employment  of  the  fig- 

ure of  the  ‘ Bridegroom  ’ with  refer-’* 

‘Bridegroom’  Himself  and  His  relations  to 

God’s  people,  thus  declared  to  be  His 
Bride,  as  they  were  currently  represented  as  the  Bride 
of  Jehovah  in  the  Old  Testament.  In  this  remarkable 
saying,  preserved  in  all  three  of  the  Synoptics  and  as- 
signed by  all  of  them  to  the  earlier  portion  of  His 
ministry,  we  have  evidence  not  only  that  Jesus  regarded 
His  ministry  as  a mission  He  had  come  to  perform, 
and  already  knew  that  it  involved  His  death,  but  that 
He  conceived  this  mission  as  Messianic  and  the  Mes- 
siahship  as  a dndne  function,  so  that  His  coming  was 

38  Cf.  Weiss  on  Lk  4^^ ; “ Luke  therefore  already  interprets  the 
of  Mark  incorrectly  of  His  divine  Mission.”  But  perhaps 
Weiss  dees  not  know  the  true  meaning  of  the  expression  in  Mark  as 
well  as  Lake  did! 


124  Desiguatious  of  Our  Lord 

the  coming  of  Jehovah,  the  faithful  husband  of  His 
people  (Hos 

The  general  impression  left  on  the  mind  by  this 
series  of  designations  is  that  Luke  was  less  interested 
in  the  preexistence  of  our  Lord  than  in  His  divine 
qualit}'  and  the  divine  nature  of  His  mission.  To  him 
Jesus  was  the  authoritative  Teacher,  the  God-appointed 
Messiah,  the  heaven-sent  Redeemer  from  sin  and  di- 
vine Founder  of  the  Kingdom  of  righteousness,  the 
Judge  of  all  the  earth.  Lord  of  men  and  angels,  and 
God’s  own  Son,  between  whom  and  the  Father  there 
persists  unbroken  and  perfect  communion.  If  there 
is  scarcely  as  full  a witness  to  these  things  in  his  gen- 
eral narrative  as  meets  us  in  Matthew,  there  is  an  air 
thrown  over  the  whole  of  settled  conviction  which  is 
very  striking;  and  the  reader  carries  away  with  him 
the  impression  that  the  engrossment  of  the  evangelist 
with  his  narrative  represses  much  more  testimony  to  the 
divine  dignity  of  the  Messiah  than  actually  finds  ex- 
pression in  his  pages. 

Cf.  Godet  in  loc.y  E.  T.,  p.  276:  “This  remarkable  sa}'ing  was 
preserved  with  literal  exactness  in  the  tradition ; accordingly  we  find 
it  in  identical  words  in  the  three  S^moptists.  It  proves,  first,  that  from 
the  earliest  period  of  His  ministix-  Jesus  regarded  Himself  as  the  Mes- 
siah; next,  that  He  identified  His  coming  with  that  of  Jehovah,  the 
husband  of  Israel  and  of  mankind  (Hos  2^®,  see  Gess,  Christi  Zeugniss, 
pp.  19,  20)  ; lastly,  that  at  that  time  He  already  foresaw  and  an- 
nounced His  violent  death.”  Godet  adds:  “It  is  an  error,  therefore,  to 
oppose  on  these  three  points,  the  founh  Gospel  to  the  other  three.” 


THE  JESUS  OF  THE  SYNOPTISTS 


Variety  of 
Titles  Used 


There  has  now  passed  under  our  observation  the 
whole  series  of  designations  applied  to  Jesus  in  the 
Synoptic  Gospels.  They  are  somewhat 
numerous,  but  all  to  much  the  same 
effect:  and  they  unite  to  suggest  a uni- 
tary conception  of  His  person  of  the  highest  exaltation. 
Our  Lord  is  called  in  these  Gospels,  ‘ Jesus, ‘ Jesus 
of  Nazareth,’^  ‘ the  Nazarene,’^  ‘ Jesus  the  Galilean,’^ 
‘ Jesus  the  prophet  from  Nazareth  of  Galilee,’^  ‘ Jesus 
surnamed  Christ.’®  ‘ Jesus  Christ,’®  ‘ Jesus  the  Son  of 
David,’^  ‘ Jesus  King  of  the  Jews,’^  ‘ Jesus,  Master,’^ 
‘ Jesus  the  Son  of  the  Most  High  God.’®  He  is  ad- 
dressed respectfully,  passing  up  into  reverently,  by  the 
titles  of  ‘ Rabbi,’®  ‘ Rabboni,’®  ‘ Teacher  ( oiddffy.ah)  ^ 
‘Master’^  {^Tzcardza)  ^ ‘Lord’  '}  and  He  is 

spoken  of  by  Himself  or  others  by  the  correspond- 
ing appellatives,  ‘Teacher,’^  ‘Guide’  { 
‘House-Master’  (o//o(^£<T;r6r2yc)  ‘ Lord.’^  obviously 

with  the  highest  implications  these  appellatives  are 
capable  of  bearing.  More  specifically  He  is  described 
as  to  His  office  and  person  by  a long  series  of  recog- 
nized Messianic  titles:  '"‘the  Coming  One,’"^  ‘the 
Prophet,^  ‘ the  Christ,’^  ‘ the  King  of  the  Jews,’^  ‘ the 
King  of  Israel,’®  ‘ the  King,’"^  ‘ the  Son  of  David,’^  ‘ the 


^ Matthew,  Mark,  Luke.  ® Matthew.  ® Mark,  Luke. 

2 Matthew,  Mark.  ^ Luke.  « Mark. 

Matthew,  Luke. 

125 


126  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

Son  of  Abraham,’^  ‘ God’s  Chosen  One,’^  ‘ the  Holy 
One  of  God,’®  ‘ the  Servant  of  God,’®  ‘ the  Son 

of  God,’^  ‘ the  Son  of  the  Blessed,’®  ‘ the  Son  of  the 
Most  High,’^  ‘ the  Son  of  the  Most  High  God,’®  ‘ the 
Son  of  the  Living  God,’®  ‘ God’s  Son,’^  ‘ the  Son,’^ 

‘ the  Son  of  Man,’^  ‘ the  Saviour  who  is  Christ  the 
Lord,’^  ‘ Immanuel,’®  ‘ the  Shepherd  who  is  God’s  Fel- 
low,’® ‘ the  Bridegroom,’^  ‘ the  Beloved.’^  ^ 

We  have  spoken  of  these  designations  as  recognized 
Messianic  titles.  They  emerge  as  such  on  the  pages 
of  the  Gospel  narrative.  But  it  is  nat- 

Jewish  Use  actual  use  as  such  by 

the  Jews  contemporary  with  our  Lord 
admits  of  illustration  from  the  very  scanty  remains  of 
their  literature  which  has  come  down  to  us  in  very  vary- 
ing measures.  Suffice  it  to  say  that  those  of  them  which 
are  most  frequently  found  in  the  Gospel  narrative  and 
which  seem  most  significant  for  it,  already  occur  in  the 
narrow  compass  of  the  Book  of  Enoch,  the  Apocalypse 
of  Baruch,  4 Esra,  and  the  Psalms  of  Solomon : ‘ the 
Christ,’  ‘ the  Son  of  David,’  ‘ the  Chosen  One  of  God,’ 
‘ the  Son  of  God,’  ‘ the  Son  of  Man.’®  The  matter  is 
of  no  great  importance  and  requires  to  be  noted  chiefly 
that  the  richness  of  the  Messianic  vocabulary  capable 
of  being  intelligibly  employed  in  Jesus’  day  may  be 
appreciated,  and  that  therefore  the  varying  designa- 
tions assigned  to  Jesus  in  the  Gospels  may  occasion  no 
surprise. 

8 For  a list  of  the  Messianic  titles  in  common  use  among  the  Jews 
see  Schiircr’s  The  Jevjish  People  in  the  Time  of  Christy  ii.  2,  158; 
Bousset,  Die  Religion  des  Judentums,  214  seq.,  248-9;  Drummond, 
The  J elvish  Messiah,  IL,  X.,  pp.  283-289;  and  cf.  Charles,  Book  of 
Enoch,  pp.  51,  112,  301. 


127 


The  Jesus  of  the  Synoptists 

This  rich  body  of  designations  is  rooted,  in  all  its 
Items,  not  In  current  Messianic  speculation,  but  In  Old 
Testament  prophecy;  and  Is  a witness 
much  to  the  Messianic  thought 
of  Jesus’  day  as  to  the  great  variety 
of  the  modes  of  representation  adopted  In  Old  Testa- 
ment revelation  to  prepare  the  people  of  God  for  His 
future  interv^entlon  for  their  redemption.  The  focus- 
ing of  all  these  lines  of  prediction  In  Jesus,  and  their 
satisfaction  In  His  manifestation,  is  one  of  the  phe- 
nomena which  marked  His  appearance,  and  differen- 
tiates the  movement  inaugurated  by  Him  from  all  other 
Messianic  movements  in  Judaism — whether  movements 
of  thought  merely  or  of  action.  He  came  forward  and 
was  recognized  as  the  embodiment  of  the  whole  Mes- 
sjaHc  preformation  of  the  Old  Testament,  moderating 
the  current  one-sided  exaggeration  of  some  elements 
of  It  and  emphasizing  other  elements  of  it  which  had 
been  neglected,  transfiguring  elements  of  It  which  had 
been  cra^y  apprehended  and  compacting  the  whole 
into  a unitary  fulfillment  unImagIned  before  His  ap- 
pearance. What  It  particularly  behooves  us  to  take  note 
of  at  the  moment  is  the  emphasis  with  which  Jesus 
Is  presented,  by  means  of  this  long  series  of  designa- 
tions, as  the  Messiah,  and  the  exalted  conception  of 
the  Messianic  dignity  w^hlch  accompanies  this  emphatic 
attribution  of  it  to  Him.  Nothing  Is  left  unsaid  which 
could  be  said  In  simple  and  straightforward  narratives 
to  make  It  clear  to  the  reader  that  Jesus  Is  the  Messiah : 
and  nothing  is  lacking  In  wTat  Is  said  to  make  it  clear 
that  this  Messiah  is  more  than  a human,  even  a divine, 
person. 


128 


The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

It  belongs  to  the  emphasis  which  is  placed  on  His 
Messianic  character  that  no  room  is  left  for  that  de- 
Jesus*  velopment  of  Jesus’  Messianic  con- 

Messianic  sciousness  which  it  has  been  the  chief 
Claims  desire  of  many  modern  students  of  His 
career  to  trace.  Nor,  indeed,  is  room  left  for  justi- 
fiable lagging  of  recognition  of  His  Messiahship  on 
the  part  of  His  followers  or  of  His  contemporaries. 
He  is  exhibited  as  already  conscious  of  His  unique  rela- 
tion to  God  as  His  Son,  in  the  sole  incident  that  is 
recorded  of  His  early  youth  (Lk  2^^).  He  is  repre- 
sented as  beginning  His  ministry  under  the  profound 
impression  necessarily  made  upon  Him  by  His  solemn 
designation  as  the  Messiah  by  John  the  Baptist  (Mt 
3^^) , confirmed  as  this  was  by  a voice  from  the  opened 
heavens  proclaiming  Him  God’s  Son,  His  Beloved,  in 
whom  God  was  well  pleased  (Mt  3^^,  Mk  Lk  3^“), 
and  by  His  terrible  experience  of  testing  by  Satan  as 
the  Son  of  God  (Mt  4^’^  Lk  4^’^),  and  His  succoring 
by  the  angels  (Mk  i^^).  Accordingly  He  is  repre- 
sented as  opening  His  ministry  by  publicly  applying  to 
Himself  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah  61^  with  its  enumera- 
tion of  the  works  of  the  Messiah  (Lk  ^i^.isseq.^^ 
as  entering  at  once  upon  the  performance  of  those 
works,  not  merely  accepting  the  ascriptions  of  Mes- 
sianic dignity  to  Him  which  they  elicited  (Lk  5®  4^^’^h 
Mk  Mt  etc.),  but  Himself  appealing  to  them 
as  the  criteria  of  His  Messiahship  (Mt  ii^,  Lk  7^®). 
He  is  represented  as,  under  the  impulse  of  His  sense  of 
His  mission  (Mk  Lk  4^^),  preaching  through- 
out the  land  in  accents  of  authority  (Mk  Lk  4^^), 
asserting  His  power  over  the  religious  ordinances  of 
the  people  (Mk  2^®,  Mt  I2^  Lk  6^),  and  exercising 


The  Jesus  of  the  Synoptists  129 

His  authority  not  only  over  unclean  spirits  (e.  g.,  Mk 
and  the  laws  of  nature  (4^^),  including  even  death 
hut  over  the  moral  world  itself,  in  the  divine 
prerogative  of  forgiving  sins  (2^^).  Not  only,  how- 
ever, is  He  represented  as  thus  openly  taking  the  posi- 
tion of  Messiah  and  assuming  the  authority  and 
functions  of  the  Messiah  (cf.  Mt  before  the 

people:  He  is  represented  as  from  the  first  speaking 
of  Himself  as  the  Messiah  in  the  use  of  His  favorite 
Messianic  designation,  as  frequently  as  He  could  be 
expected  to  do  so  in  the  circumstances  in  which  He 
was  placed  and  with  the  purpose  which  governed  His 
entire  course  of  life  (Mt  8“^  ||  Lk  9^®;  Mt  9®  ||  Mk  2^^ 
Lk  5-^;  Mt  10^^;  Mt  ii'^ll  Lk  7^^;  Mt  i2«  ||  Mk  2^^ 
Lk  6^;  Mt  12^^;  12^^;  Lk  6^“;  Mt  13^^;  before  the  con- 
fession of  Peter  at  Mt  16^®  ||).®  When  these  instances 
of  self-expression  are  taken  in  connection  with  those  of 
reception  of  the  Messianic  ascription  from  others  (e.  g., 
Mk  3''  5^  Mt  4^’"  8-^  I4^^  Lk  4^1  8^"  4^’^  Mt  9^^ 
15^^),  it  will  be  seen  that  the  early  ministry  of  Jesus, 
as  represented  by  the  Synoptists,  was  marked  by  prac- 
tically continuous  assertion  or  confession  of  His  Mes- 
siahship. 

If,  then,  John  the  Baptist  doubted  in  prison  whether 
He  was  ‘the  Coming  One’  (Mt  ii^),  or  it  was  only 
Divergence  through  a revelation  from  heaven  that 
From  Current  Peter  attained  to  confess  Him  with  firm 
Expectations  ‘ the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  Living 

God’  (Mt  16^®’^^),  this  was  not  because  of  any  lack 
of  opportunity  to  learn  of  His  Messiahship,  but  be- 

9 Cf.  Dalman,  Words,  p.  259:  “As  for  the  Evangelists  themselves, 
they  take  the  view  that  Jesus  called  Himself  the  ‘ Son  of  Man  ’ at  all 
times  and  before  all  company.” 


130  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

cause  they  were  foolish  and  slow  of  heart  to  believe 
in  all  that  the  prophets  had  spoken  and  their  eyes  were 
holden  that  they  should  not  know  Him  as  He  walked 
with  them  in  the  way  (Lk  24^®’^^).  So  little  were  they 
left  in  ignorance  of  who  it  was  to  whom  they  listened 
as  their  Teacher,  and  obeyed  as  their  Master  and  rev- 
erenced as  their  Lord,  that  it  is  represented  that  an- 
gelic messengers  descended  from  heaven  to  announce 
Him  as  the  promised  Messiah  before  His  birth  (Lk 
j32,35  predicted  messenger  who  should 

go  before  the  Lord,  coming  to  redeem  His  people, 
pointed  Him  out  as  the  One  who  should  come  after 
Him  (Mt  3^^  II),  that  God  Himself  proclaimed  Him 
from  heaven  as  His  Son  (Mt  3^^  ||),  that  Satan  and  his 
subject  spirits  recognized  Him  on  sight  as  the  One  who 
had  been  appointed  to  destroy  them  (Mk  5”^  ||  etc.), 
and  that  His  whole  career  and  teaching  alike  were  or- 
dered to  convey  to  every  seeing  eye  the  great  intelligence. 
The  difficulty,  according  to  the  representation  of  the 
evangelists,  was  not  that  there  was  not  evidence  enough 
that  here  was  the  Messiah  of  God,  the  King  come  to 
His  Kingdom;  but  that  the  evidence  was  not  of  the 
nature  that  had  been  expected  and  therefore  puzzled 
men’s  minds  rather  than  convinced  them.  The  gist 
of  our  Lord’s  message  to  the  Baptist  (Mt  ii^)  was 
not  that  John  might  see  in  His  works  such  things  as  he 
had  been  looking  for  in  the  Messiah,  but  that  he  might 
see  in  them  such  things  as  he  ought  to  be  looking  for. 
“ Go  and  tell  John  that  these  are  the  kinds  of  things 
you  see  in  me — the  blind  receive  their  sight,  the  lame 
walk,  the  lepers  are  cleansed,  the  deaf  hear,  and  the 
dead  are  raised  up ; and  the  poor  have  the  good  tidings 
preached  to  them:  and  blessed  is  he  ziho  shall  find 


The  Jesus  of  the  Synoptists  13 1 

none  occasion  of  stumbling  in  Me!  It  is  as  much  as 
to  say,  “ Go  and  tell  John  to  revise  his  conception  of 
the  Messiah,  and  to  look  and  see  if  it  is  not  these 
things  which,  according  to  the  Scriptures  (Is  61^), 
should  mark  His  work:  go  and  tell  John,  I am  indeed 
He  who  is  to  come,  but  I am  not  the  manner  of  Mes- 
siah who  is  expected  to  come.”^® 

Accordingly  the  Synoptic  narrative  Is  marked  no 
more  by  the  stress  It  lays  on  the  Messlahship  of  Jesus 
Transfigured  than  by  the  transfigured  conception  of 
Conception  of  this  Messlahship  which  It  In  every  line 
Messiah  insists  upon.  This  constantly  vibrating 
note  Is  already  struck  in  the  supernatural  announce- 
ments of  the  birth  of  Jesus.  It  is  the  Son  of  David  who 
Is  to  be  born  (Mt  I“^  Lk  the  promised  King 

(Mt  2^  Lk  ; but,  above  all  else  and  before  all 
else,  that  Saviour  who  Is  Christ  the  Lord  (Lk  2^^), 
and  whose  name  shall  be  called  Jesus,  because  It  is 
He  who  In  fulfillment  of  the  ancient  prophecy  promis- 
ing the  coming  of  Jehovah  to  His  people,  shall  save 
His  people  frorn  their  sins  (Mt  i^^).  It  is  not  merely 
a spiritual  function  which  Is  here  announced  for  this 
Messiah:  It  I'>  also  a divine  personality.  Who  is  that 
Saviour  who  is  Christ  “ the  Lordf^  and  whose  name 
shall  be  called  Jesus  because  He  shall  save  from  their 
sins  His  people — ''His”  people,  let  us  take  good  note, 
Jesus’  people,  although  It  Is  clear  It  Is  Jehovah’s  peo- 
ple who  are  meant?  No  wonder  that  it  Is  Immediately 
added  that  In  this  birth  there  Is,  therefore,  fulfilled  the 

Cf.  the  discussion  by  Shaller  Mathews,  The  Messianic  Hope  in 
the  N.  T.,  1905,  pp.  95-6;  although  Professor  Mathews’  treatment  is 
dominated  by  the  idea  that  our  Lord’s  followers  saw  in  Jesus  rather 
one  who  was  after  a while  to  do  Messianic  works  than  one  who  was 
already  doing  then>,. 


132  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

prophecy  of  the  issue  from  a virgin  of  one  whose  name 
is  to  be  called  Immanuel,  which  is,  being  interpreted, 
“God  with  us’’  (Mt  i^^). 

The  note  thus  struck  is  sustained  throughout  the 
Gospel  narrative.  This  Messiah  who  Jesus  is,  is  cer- 
tainly the  Son  of  David,  the  King  of  Israel.  But  the 
Kingdom  He  has  come  to  found  is  the  kingdom  of 
righteousness,  not  merely  a righteous  kingdom:  it  is 
the  Kingdom  of  Heaven,  not  a kingdom  of  the  earth: 
the  Kingdom  of  God,  not  of  men.  We  may  see  its 
nature  in  Daniel’s  splendid  dream  of  the  heaven-founded 
kingdom  of  the  saints  of  the  Most  High  (Dan  . 

the  method  of  its  establishment  in  Isaiah’s  vision  of  the 
Righteous  Servant  of  Jehovah,  who  bears  the  sins  of 
His  people  and  preaches  the  good  tidings  to  the  meek 
(esp.  Is  53  and  61)  ; the  person  of  its  founder  in  that 
most  glorious  of  all  prophecies  of  the  Old  Covenant: 
“ Lo,  your  God  will  come;  He  will  come  and  save 
you!”  (Is  35^);  “the  voice  of  one  that  crieth.  Pre- 
pare ye  in  the  wilderness  the  way  of  the  Lord,  make 
straight  in  the  desert  a highway  for  our  God;  . . . 

the  glory  of  the  Lord  shall  be  revealed  and  all  flesh 
shall  see  it  together,  . . . Behold  your  God!  Be- 

hold the  Lord  God  will  come  . . . He  shall 
feed  His  flock  like  a shepherd.  He  shall  gather  the 
lambs  in  His  arms,  and  carry  them  in  His  bosom,  and 
gently  lead  those  that  give  suck”  (Is  To 

put  it  in  one  sentence,  the  Messianic  ideal  which  is 
presented  in  the  Synoptics  as  fulfilled  in  Jesus  finds 

Cf.  Reinhold  Ziemssen,  Christus  der  Herr,  1867,  p.  28:  “They 

proclaim  with  one  voice  that  the  Lord  (Jehovah)  Himself  will  come, 
that  He  Himself  will  protect  His  flock,  that  He  Himself  will  be  King 
in  Zion,  that  He  Himself  will  be  found  of  Israel.” 


The  Jesus  of  the  Synoptists 


133 


Its  Old  Testament  basis  not  merely  in  the  prediction  of 
a Davidic  King  who  reigns  forever  over  the  people 
of  God,  but,  Interpreting  that  kingdom  In  the  terms 
of  Daniel’s  dream  of  a heaven-founded  kingdom  of 
saints,  interweaves  with  It  the  portraitures  of  the  Serv- 
xant  of  Jehovah  of  Isaiah  and  the  fundamental  promise 
xthat  Jehovah  shall  visit  His  people  for  redemption. 
The  special  vehicles  of  the  exalted  view  of  the  per- 
son of  the  Messiah  embodied  In  this  Ideal  are,  so  far 
as  the  Messianic  designations  are  con- 
Designations  cerned,  first  of  all  that  of  the  ‘ Son  of 
Man,’  then  that  of  ‘ the  Son  of  God,’ 
or  rather.  In  the  more  pregnant  simple  form,  of  ‘ the 
Son  ’ ; and  outside  of  the  Messianic  titles  proper,  the 
high  title  of  ‘ Lord.’  The  history  of  these  designations 
is  somewhat  obscure,  and,  although  they  all  have  their 
roots  set  In  the  Old  Testament,  Is  Illustrated  by  only 
scanty  usage  of  them  In  Jewish  literature  prior  to  our 
Lord’s  time.  ‘ The  Son  of  Man  ’ occurs  only  In  the 
Similitudes  of  Enoch  and  In  4 Ezrad**  the  exact  title 
‘ Son  of  God  ’ does  not  seem  to  occur  at  alV®  though 


12  Cf.  Dalman,  Words,  p.  242:  “From  the  first  Christian  century 
there  are  only  two  Jewish  writings  known  which  deal  with  Dan  7^^, 
the  Similitudes  of  the  Book  of  Enoch  and  the  Second  [al.  Fourth]  Book 
of  Esdras.  The  two  agree  in  regarding  the  one  like  to  a Son  of  Man 
as  an  individual  person.  And  as  they  combine  Dan  7 with  Messianic 
prophecies  from  the  O.  T.  they  clearly  show  that  they  regard  this  indi- 
vidual as  the  Messiah.”  Cf.  p.  248. 

Cf.  Stanton,  The  Jewish  and  Christian  Messiah,  p.  147,  and  esp. 
288;  and  Dalman,  Words,  269-71:  also  Shailer  Mathews,  The  Mes- 
sianic  Hope  in  the  N.  T.,  1905,  p.  46  and  note  4.  Dr.  Sanday  on 
•Rom  writes  as  follows:  “‘Son  of  God,’  like  ‘Son  of  Man,’  was  a 
recognized  title  of  the  Messiah  (cf.  Enoch  1052 ; 4 Ezra  728,29  1282,37,62 
14®,  in  all  which  places  the  Almighty  speaks  of  the  Messiah  as  ‘ My 
Son,’  though  the  exact  phrase  ‘Son  of  God’  does  not  occur).  It  is 
remarkable  that  in  the  Gospels  we  very  rarely  find  it  used  by  our 


134  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

in  an  interpolated  fragment  of  the  Book  of  Enoch 
(i05“)  and  in  4 Ezra  the  Messiah  is  represented  as 
spoken  of  by  God  as  ‘ My  Son.’^^  It  is  noteworthy  that 
in  this  rare  Jewish  usage  both  titles  appear  In  connec- 
tion with  a transcendental  doctrine  of  the  Messiah/® 
and  It  may  be  that  it  is  the  unwontedness  of  a transcen- 
dental doctrine  of  the  Messiah  In  Judaism  which  ac- 
counts for  the  little  use  made  In  Jewish  speculation  of 
them,  because  these  titles  were  felt  to  be  implicative 
of  more  than  human  qualities.  Their  emergence  Into 
more  frequent  use  in  the  Gospels  would  In  that  case 
be  connected  with  the  emphasis  laid,  according  to  their 

Lord  Himself,  though  in  the  face  of  Mt  27^^,  Jno  10^®,  cf.  Mt  21^^ 
ei  al.,  it  cannot  be  said  that  He  did  not  use  it.  It  is  more  often  used 
to  describe  the  impression  made  upon  others  (e.g.  the  demonized,  Mk 
3I1  5”  II,  the  centurion,  Mk  15^^  ||),  and  it  is  implied  by  the  words  of 
the  tempter  (Mt  4^-6  ||)^  and  the  voice  from  heaven  (Mk  9’^ID- 
The  crowning  instance  is  the  confession  of  St.  Peter  . . . Mt  16I®.” 

Cf.  Dalman,  Words,  269-70;  Charles,  Enoch,  301. 

Cf.  Bousset,  Die  Religion  des  Judentums,  etc.,  248 : “ But  here  and 
there  there  springs  up,  now,  in  the  Jewish  Apocalyptics  a new  tran- 
scendental Messiah-conception,  that  fits  into  these  transcendental  sur- 
roundings. In  the  first  line  there  comes  here  under  consideration  the 
Similitudes  of  Enoch,  springing  from  the  pre-Herodian  time.  The 
standing  designation  of  this  peculiar  Messiah  is  the  ‘ Son  of  Man  ’ . . . 
Still  more  remarkable  and  unusual  than,  in  part,  the  name  is  now  the 
figure  of  this  Son  of  Man.  He  is  in  no  respect  an  earthly  phenom- 
enon; he  is  not,  like  the  Messiah  of  the  stock  of  David,  born  on  earth; 
he  is  an  angel-like  being,  whose  dwelling  place  is  in  heaven  under 
the  pinions  of  the  Lord  of  spirits;  He  is  preexistent  . . . Emphasis 

must  be  laid  on  the  Son  of  Man  in  the  great  judgment  upon  the  kings 
of  the  earth  and  the  evil  angels;  He  takes  His  place  by  the  side  of 
God  and  indeed  supplants  Him  . . . This  representation  of  the 
Messiah,  singular  in  the  sphere  of  Judaism,  has  only  one,  though  by  no 
means  so  far-going  a,  parallel  in  the  vision  of  the  Son  of  Man  of  4 
Ezra.  . . . Here  too  the  Son  of  Man  ...  is  conceived  as  a 

preexistent  (heavenly?)  being.  Here  too  he  holds  the  great  judgment, 
and,  according  to  the  original  disposition  of  the  apocalypse,  seems  also 


The  Jesus  of  the  Synoptists  135 

representation,  upon  the  essential  divinity  of  the  Mes- 
siah by  Jesus  and  His  followers. 

Certainly  the  Messianic  conception  represented  as 
expressed  by  Jesus  through  His  constant  employment 
of  the  title  ‘ Son  of  Man  ’ of  Himself, 
‘^n^oTMan*  ^ supermundane  Being  enter- 

ing the  sphere  of  earthly  life  upon  a high 
and  beneficent  mission,  upon  the  accomplishment  of 
which  He  returns  to  the  heavenly  sphere,  whence  He 
shall  once  more  come  back  to  earth,  now,  however, 
not  in  humiliation,  but  in  His  appropriate  majesty,  to 
gather  up  the  fruits  of  Plis  work  and  consummate  all 
things.  The  characteristic  note  of  ‘ the  Son  of  Man  ’ 
on  earth  is  therefore  a lowliness  which  is  not  so  much 
a humility  as  a humiliation,  a voluntary  self-abnegation 
for  a purpose.  He  came  under  the  conditions  of  hu- 
man life  (Mt  II)  on  a mission  of  mercy  (Lk  19^^) 
which  involved  His  self-sacrifice  (Mk  io^^||),  and  there- 
fore lives  a life  unbefitting  His  essential  nature  (Mt 
8“®).  For,  when  He  tells  the  questioning  scribe  that 
the  ‘ Son  of  Man  ’ is  worse  off  than  the  very  foxes, 
who  have  holes,  and  the  birds  of  the  air,  wTo  have 
nests,  since  He  has  not  where  to  lay  His  head  (Mt 
8^^),  the  very  point  of  the  remark  is  the  incongruity 

to  bring  In  the  definitive  end,  and  not  merely  a preliminary  closing 
. . .”  So  also  p.  215:  “The  title  Son  of  God,  closely  connected 

though  it  is  with  the  conception  of  the  Son  of  David  and  the 
Anointed,  is  comparatively  very  rare.  It  is  found  In  the  address  in 
Psalm  2,  which  also  became  typical  for  the  title  ‘Messiah’  (verse  7, 
cf.  Ps  89-'^).  In  4 Ezra  7-®  the  filius  Is  not  textually  assured;  in  i. 
Enoch  1052  the  words  “ and  My  Son,”  as  perhaps  also  the  whole  clause, 
is  a later  interpolation.  Accordingly  the  apposition,  ‘ My  Son,’  is  found 
only  In  4 Ez  113,32,37,52^ — jg  section  In  which  along 

with  the  Similitudes,  the  transcendent  conception  of  the  Messiah  comes 
forward  most  vitally — and  also  in  4 Ezra  14^  (Dalman,  219).” 


136  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

of  the  situation.  Accordingly  even  on  earth  He  exer- 
cises an  authority  which  does  not  belong  to  His  condi- 
tion: though  destined  to  be  set  at  naught  by  men,  to 
be  evil-entreated  and  slain,  yet  He  has  power  to  regu- 
late the  religious  observances  of  the  people  of  God 
(Mk  2^^)  and  even  to  forgive  sins  (2^^).  And  when 
His  lowly  mission  is  accomplished  He  ascends  the 
throne  of  the  universe  (Mk  14®“,  Mt  19“^)  J 
due  time  will  return  in  His  glory  and  render  to  every 
man  according  to  his  works,  seated  as  King  on  the 
universal  judgment  seat  (Mk  8^^  Mt  25^^).  The  con- 
nection of  the  title  with  the  dream  of  Daniel  is 
obvious:  the  point  of  connection  lying  in  the  concep- 
tion of  the  Kingdom  of  God,  which  Jesus  came  to  in- 
troduce, and  which  He  finds  particularly  promised  in 
Daniel  apparently  because  it  is  there  depicted, 

specifically  in  contrast  with  the  earthly  kingdoms  which 
it  supercedes,  as  a Kingdom  of  heaven.  But  there  is 
much  more  expressed  by  the  title  than  is  discernible  In 
the  dream  of  Daniel,  and  that  not  least  with  reference 
to  the  person  of  the  founder,  who  is  conceived,  in  Jesus’ 
idea,  as  represented  by  the  Synoptic  record,  not  merely 
as  a supernmndane,  perhaps  angelic,  figure,^®  but  dis- 
tinctly as  superangelic,  transcending  all  creaturely  re- 
lief. Stanton,  J elvish  and  Christian  Messiah,  286-7:  “I  may  remark 
- that  the  Idea  of  the  preexistence  of  Christ  as  an  angel,  is  irreconcilable 
X with  that  of  a true  Incarnation.  Those  who  have  thought  of  Christ  as 
essentially  an  angel  have  never  in  fact  conceived,  and  could  not  con- 
ceive, His  human  life  to  be  real.  A whole  and  complete  human  nature 
could  not  be  united  to  another  finite  being,  whether  angel  or  man,  as 
it  could  be  united  to,  and  could  become  the  perfect  organ  of,  God. 
Wherever,  then,  we  find  a belief  in  the  real  human  nature  of  Jesus 
Christ,  there  we  may  confidently  say  the  idea  formed  of  His  super- 
human pregxistence  and  personality  is  not  that  of  an  angel.  . . . 
Hellwag  fails  altogether  to  see  this  when  he  attributes  such  a concep- 


The  Jesus  of  the  Synoptists  137 

latlons,^'^  and  finding  His  appropriate  place  only  by  the 
side  of  God  Himself,  whose  functions  He  performs^* 
and  whose  throne  He  occupies  as  Kingd® 

The  conception  attached  in  these  Gospels  to  the  des- 
ignation ‘ Son  of  God  ’ is  in  no  respect  less  exalted. 

The  title  does  occasionally  occur,  to  be 
*^on^oi%od*  circumstances  in  which  this  ex- 

alted significance  seems  more  or  less  in 
danger  of  being  missed.  For  example,  it  is  employed 
by  the  Jewish  officers  at  the  trial  of  Christ  as  in  some 
sense  a synonym  of  the  general  Messianic  title  ‘ Christ  ’ 
(Mk  14^  Mt  26^^  Lk  22^  cf.  Mt  27^"’^^);  it  is 
also  employed,  according  to  Matthew’s  account,  by 
Peter  in  his  great  confession  alongside  'of  the  term 
‘ Christ’  (16^®)  ; and  on  one  occasion  Jesus’  disciples, 
having  witnessed  a notable  miracle,  cried  out  as  they 
did  Him  reverence,  “ Of  a truth  Thou  are  the  [or,  a] 
Son  of  God”  (Mt  14^^).  Such  passages,  no  doubt, 
illustrate  the  use  of  the  term  as  a Messianic  title.  But 
it  seems  clear  enough  that  they  illustrate  its  use  as  a 
Messianic  title  of  inherently  higher  connotation  than, 
say,  the  simple  term  ‘ the  Christ ' as  a general  synonym 
of  which  it  is  employed.  The  very  point  of  the  Jews’ 
approaching  Jesus  with  this  particular  Messianic  title 
appears  to  have  been — as  the  form  of  the  narrative 
in  Luke  may  suggest^ -to  obtain  a confession  which 
would  enable  them  from  their  point  of  view  to  charge 

Hellwag  is  the  writer  who  has  most  insisted  on  the  influence  of  a Jew- 
ish doctrine  of  the  Messiah’s  preexistence  upon  Christian  belief.”  The 
speculative  element  in  this  remark  is  perhaps  too  dogmatically  put: 
but  there  is  food  for  thought  in  it. 

The  angels  are  subject  to  Him  and  do  His  bidding:  Mt  13^^  16^'^ 
24®^;  and  also  Mt  4^^  i3^^»  Mk  Lk  9^®. 

Especially  forgiveness  of  sins  (Mk  2®)  and  judgment  of  the 
world  (e.g.  Mt  25^1  — two  inalienable  divine  functions. 


138  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

Him  with  blasphemy.  That  is  to  say,  the  implications 
of  this  Messianic  title  in  their  minds  seem  to  have  been 
such  that  its  use  by  a mere  man,  or  by  one  seemingly 
a mere  man,  would  involve  him  in  claims  for  himself 
which  were  tantamount  to  blasphemy.  It  seems  equally 
clear  that  Peter  in  acknowledging  Jesus  to  be  the  Mes- 
siah (Mt  16^®)  intended  by  adjoining  to  the  simple, 
“ Thou  art  the  Christ  ” the  defining  phrase  “ the  Son 
of  the  Living  God  ” to  attach  an  exalted  conception  of 
the  Messiahship  to  Him.  And  it  is  fairly  obvious  that 
the  frightened  disciples  in  the  boat  (Mt  14^^), — though 
certainly  they  understood  not  and  their  heart  was  hard- 
ened (Mk  6'^^), — yet  expressed  out  of  their  distracted 
minds  at  least  the  sense  of  a supernatural  presence  when 
they  cried  out,  “ Truly  Thou  art  ” — possibly  “ a,”  not 
“ the  ” — “ Son  of  God.”  Their  exclamation  thus  may 
in  its  own  degree  be  paralleled  at  least  with  that  of 
the  centurion  at  the  cross  (Mk  15^^  Mt  27^^),  “ Truly 
this  man  was  a Son  of  God  ” — which  surely  is  the 
natural  expression,  from  his  own  point  of  view,  of  his 
awe  in  the  presence  of  the  supernatural. 

This  series  of  exceptional  instances  of  the  employ- 
ment of  the  term  ‘ Son  of  God  ’ will  scarcely,  there- 
fore, avail  to  lessen  the  general  impression  we  get  from 
the  current  use  of  the  title,  that  it  designates  the  Mes- 
siah from  a point  of  view  which  differentiates  Him  as 
‘ the  Son  of  God  ’ from  the  children  of  men,  and  throws 
< into  emphasis  a distinct  implication  of  the  supernatural- 
^ ness  of  His  person.  It  seems  to  be  on  this  account  that 
it  is  characteristically  employed  by  voices  from  the 
unseen  universe.  It  is  by  this  term,  for  instance,  that 
^ Satan  addresses  Jesus  in  the  temptation,  seeking  to 
" Induce  Him  by  this  exploitation  of  His  supernatural 


139 


The  Jesus  of  the  Synoptists 

character  to  perform  supernatural  deeds  (Mt  4^’®,  Lk 
4^’^).  It  is  by  this  term  (Lk  4^^)  that  the  demons 
greet  Him  when  they  recognize  in  Him  the  judge 
and  destroyer  of  all  that  is  evil  (Mk  3^^  5^,  Mt  8^^ 
Lk  8“®;  4^^).  It  is  by  this  term  that  the  angel  of  the 
annunciation  is  represented  as  describing  the  nature 
of  her  miraculous  child  to  Mary:  “ He  shall  be  great,” 
he  announced,  “ and  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  the  Most 
High  God.”  And  in  doing  this,  it  must  be  noted,  the 
angel  connects  the  title  no  more  with  His  appointment 
to  a supernatural  service  than  with  the  supematural- 
ness  of  His  origin:  because  Mary’s  conception  should 
be  supernatural,  therefore,  that  holy  thing  which  was 
being  begotten  should  bear  the  name  of  the  ‘ Son  of 
God  ’ (Lk  jg  ‘ ]\4y  gon  ’ above 

all  that  God  Himself  bore  witness  to  Him  on  the  two 
occasions  when  He  spoke  from  heaven  to  give  Him 
His  testimony  (Mk  9”^,  Mt  3^^  17^  Lk  3^^  9^^)  — 
adding  to  it  moreover  epithets  which  emphasized  the. 
uniqueness  of  the  Sonship  thus  solemnly  announced.  It 
would  seem  quite  clear,  therefore,  that  the  title  ‘ Son 
of  God  ’ stands  in  the  pages  of  the  Synoptics  as  the 
supernatural  Messianic  designation  by  way  of  eminence, 
xand  represents  the  Messiah  in  contradistinction  from 
children  of  men  as  of  a supernatural  origin  and  nature. 

It  is,  however,  from  our  Lord’s  own  application  of 
the  term  ‘ the  Son  ’ to  Himself  that  we  derive  our 
plainest  insight  into  the  loftiness  of  its  implications. 
Already  in  the  Parable  of  the  Wicked  Husbandmen 
(Mk  12^  Mt  21^^  Lk  20^^,  cf.  Mt  22^),  He  sets 
Himself  as  God’s  Son  and  Heir  over  against  all  His 
servants,  of  whatever  quality;  which  would  seem  to 
withdraw  Him  out  of  the  category  of  creatures  alto- 


140  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

gather.  And  this  tremendous  inference  is  fully 
supported  by  the  remarkable  utterance  in  which,  in 
declaring  His  ignorance  of  the  time  of  His  future 
coming,  He  places  Himself  outside  of  the  category 
even  of  angels,  that  is  of  creatures  of  the  highest  rank, 
and  assimilates  Himself  as  Son  to  the  Father  (Mk  13^^, 
Mt  24^®) . It  is  carried  out  of  the  region  of  inference 
into  that  of  assertion  in  the  tw^o  remarkable  passages 
in  which  He  gives  didactic  expression  to  His  relation 
as  Son  to  the  Father  (Mt  i Lk  Mt  28^^). 
In  these.  He  tells  us  He  is  co-sharer  in  the  one  Name 
with  the  Father,  and  co-exists  with  the  Father  in  a 
complete,  perfect  and  unbroken  interpenetration  of 
mutual  knowledge  and  being.  The  essential  deity  of 
the  Son  could  not  receive  more  absolute  expression. 

The  difficulty  of  forming  a precise  estimate  of  the 
implications  of  the  application  of  the  term  ‘ Lord  ’ 
to  Jesus  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels  arises 
from  the  confluence  of  two  diverse 
streams  of  significance  in  that  term.  On 
the  one  hand  Jesus  may  be  and  is  called  ‘ Lord  ’ 
by  the  application  to  Him  of  a title  expressive  of 
authority  and  sovereignty  commonly  in  use  among  men : 
above  all  others  who  have  a right  to  rule  He  has  a 
right  to  rule.  On  the  other  hand,  Jesus  may  be  and 
is  called  ‘ Lord  ’ by  the  application  to  Him  of  a current 
Biblical  title  expressive  of  the  divine  majesty:  much 
that  was  said  of  the  ‘ Lord  ’ in  the  Old  Testament 
^ Scriptures  was  carried  over  to  Him  and  with  it  the 
term  itself.^®  When,  then,  we  meet  with  an  instance  in 

Cf.  Reinhold  Ziemssen,  Christus  der  Herr,  1867,  p.  22:  “But 
this  is  meant:  that  just  as  xupco^^  ‘Lord,’  occurs  in  the  O.  T.  (i)  as 
the  equivalent  of  Jehovah;  (2)  as  the  rendering  of  Adhonai ; and  (3) 
as  a transference  of  the  human  honorific  title  to  God, — so  also  in  the 


The  Jesus  of  the  Synoptists  14 1 

which  Jesus  Is  called  ‘ Lord  ’ we  are  puzzled  to  de- 
termine whether  there  Is  merely  attributed  to  Him 
supreme  authority  and  jurisdiction,  or  there  Is  given  to 
Him  the  Name  that  Is  above  every  name. 

That  the  designation  ‘ the  Lord  ’ had  attached  Itself 
to  Jesus  during  His  lifetime  so  that  He  was  thus  fa- 
miliarly spoken  of  among  His  followers  Is  perfectly 
clear  from  the  Gospel  narrative.  It  Is  Indeed  already 
Implied  In  the  Instruction  given  His  disciples  by  Jesus 
to  bring  Him  the  ass’s  colt  on  which  He  might  make 
His  entry  Into  Jerusalem.  He  could  not  have  Instructed 
them  to  say  to  possible  objectors,  “ The  Lord  hath  need 
of  him”  (Mk  ii^  Mt  2i^  Lk  19^^),  unless  He  had 
been  accustomed  to  be  spoken  of  as  ‘ the  Lord.’  That 
He  was  accustomed  to  thinking  of  Himself  as 
their  ‘ Lord  ’ follows  also  from  such  a passage 
as  Mt  24^^  (cf.  Mk  13^^):  “Watch,  therefore,  for 
ye  know  not  on  what  day  your  Lord  cometh”;  and 
indeed  from  the  didactic  use  of  the  term  of  Himself 

N.  T.  the  Saviour  is  called  xupio<$^  ^Lord,’  (i)  in  the  sense  of  Adho- 
nai-Jehovah;  (2)  by  a heightening  of  the  human  sense  or  an  adapta- 
tion from  the  relations  of  human  sovereignty:  and  that  the  name  ‘Lord’ 
belongs  to  the  Saviour  according  to  the  N.  T.  essentially  and  fundamen- 
tally in  the  sense  of  Adhonai  or  Jehovah,  not  as  the  transference  or 
heightening  of  the  human  relation  of  sovereignty.”  The  use  of  xopto<^ 
in  the  N.  T.  of  our  Lord,  he  says  again,  “ has  in  the  first  instance  noth- 
ing to  do  with  glory,  do^a,  and  just  as  truly  stands  in  the  N.  T.  in 
no  essential  connection  with  ruling”  (p.  lo).  This  is  not 

to  contend  that  6 xupto<s  in  N.  T.  when  applied  to  Christ  always 
means  Jehovah.  In  almost  all  the  passages  in  the  Gospels  where  xupto<s 
appears  as  a formula  of  address  it  is  a human  honorific.  In  certain 
others,  as  Lk  1931,34^  Lk  6^®,  Mt  7^1,  something  may  be  said  for  either 
interpretation  (p.  21).  But  there  are  passages  where  It  must  be  taken 
as  the  divine  xupco?^  viz.,  Lk  2^.  *0  xupio^  Zeimssen  holds,  is  the 
name  of  Jesus  as  the  Son  of  God,  just  as  Jesus  is  His  name  as  the  Son  of 
man,  and  Christ  is  His  office-name  (p.  30)  ; and  refers  back  to  the 
prophecies  of  Jehovah’s  advent,  such  as  Ezek  34I1  (p.  20). 


142  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

in  encouraging  or  warning  His  followers  (Mt  10^"^), 
and  its  free  employment  in  parabolic  pictures,  where 
He  represents  Himself  as  the  ‘ Lord  ’ over  against  His 
servants  (Lk  12^®’^^).  In  what  sense  the  term  is  used 
in  such  allusions  is  not,  however,  immediately  obvious. 
The  opposition  of  it  to  “ slaves  ” in  such  passages  as 
Mt  10^^,  Lk  leads  to  its  instinctive  interpretation 

in  the  sense  of  ownership  and  sovereignty,  and  does  not 
appear  to  call  for  direct  divine  implications  save  as  the 
absoluteness  of  the  sovereignty  which  is  suggested  may 
surpass  that  enjoyed  by  men.  Perhaps  something  to 
the  same  effect  may  be  said  of  Luke  where  Elisabeth, 
under  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  expresses  her 
wondering  joy  that  “ the  mother  of  her  Lord  ’’  should 
come  to  her.  Clearly  she  intends  to  express  by  the 
designation  the  height  of  at  least  Messianic  glory:  but 
it  does  not  seem  obvious  that  her  thought  went  beyond 
the  delegated  glory  of  the  divine  representative.  In 
a passage  like  Luke  5®,  however,  there  seems  to  be 
an  ascription  to  Jesus  of  a majesty  which  is  distinctly 
recognized  as  supernatural:  not  only  is  the  contrast 
of  ‘ Lord  ’ with  ‘ Master’  here  express  (cf.  v.  5),  but 
the  phrase  “ Depart  from  me;  for  I am  a sinful  man  ” 
(v.  8)  is  the  natural  utterance  of  that  sense  of  unworthi- 
ness which  overwhelms  men  in  the  presence  of  the 
divine,  and  which  is  signalized  in  Scripture  as  the 
mark  of  recognition  of  the  divine  presence.  The 
‘ Lord,  Lord  ’ of  Mt  also  obviously  involves  a 

recognition  of  Jesus  as  the  Lord  of  life,  and  in  Mt 
2^37,44  ‘ Lord  ’ is  the  appropriate  address  to  the  King 
on  the  judgment  throne  of  the  whole  earth.  In  these 
instances  the  sense  of  the  mere  supernatural  gives  way 
to  the  apprehension  of  that  absolute  sovereignty  over 


The  Jesus  of  the  Synoptists  143 

the  destinies  of  men  which  can  belong  to  deity  alone; 
it  is  this  ‘ Lord  ’ in  whose  name  all  the  works  of  life 
are  done,  by  whose  determination  all  the  issues  of  life 
are  fixed. 

If  in  such  instances  we  appear  to  be  employing  the 
word  in  its  highest  connotation  of  sovereignty,  in  such 
instances  as  the  discussion  of  David’s  words  in  the 
noth  Psalm  we  seem  to  rise  into  a region  of  actual 
divine  ascription.  Here,  with  obvious  reference  to 
Himself,  our  Lord  argues  that  when  David  in  the  Spirit 
represents  the  Lord  as  saying  to  his  Lord,  “ Sit  thou 
on  My  right  hand,”  he  ascribes  a dignity  to  the  Mes- 
siah very  much  greater  than  could  belong  to  Him  sim- 
ply as  David’s  son  (Mk  That  seems  as  much 

as  to  say  that  sovereignty  of  the  royal  order,  however 
absolute,  is  too  low  a category  under  which  to  subsume 
this  Lordship : and  therefore  appears  to  point  to  a 
connotation  of  ‘ Lord  ’ beyond  illustration  from  hu- 
man analogies.  The  question  inevitably  obtrudes  itself 
whether  our  Lord  does  not  intend  to  suggest  that  David 
applies  the  divine  name  itself  to  the  Messiah.  That 
the  evangelists  may  very  readily  have  so  understood 
Him  seems  evident  from  their  own  application  to 
Jesus  of  the  term  ‘ Lord  ’ in  Isaiah  40^, — representing 
‘^^'the  incommunicable  name  of  Jehovah  as  it  does, — in 
their  account  of  the  mission  of  the  Baptist,  whom  they 
consentiently  speak  of  as  the  forerunner  of  Jesus,  ful- 
filling the  prophecy  of  the  coming  of  the  voice  of  one 
crying,  “ Prepare  ye  in  the  wilderness  the  way  of  the 
Lord,  make  His  paths  straight”  (Mk  Mt  3^  Lk 

Cf.  Bengal  on  Mt  22^^ ; signum  subjectionis,  dominatio,  cujiis  sub- 
ditus  est  ipse  David,  coelestem  et  Regis  majestatem  et  Regni  indolent 
ostendit. 


144  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

3^).  And  there  remains  the  remarkable  passage  in 
the  angelic  annunciation  to  the  shepherds  of  the  birth 
in  the  city  of  David  of  that  “ Saviour  ” who  is  “ Christ 
the  Lord”  (Lk  2^^).  It  seems  impossible  to  suppose 
that  the  term  ‘ the  Lord  ’ here  adds  nothing  to  the 
term  ‘the  Christ’ — else  why  is  it  added?  But  what 
can  the  term  ‘ Lord  ’ add  as  a climax  to  ‘ Christ  ’ ? In 
‘ Christ  ’ itself,  the  Anointed  King,  there  is  already 
expressed  the  height  of  sovereignty  and  authority  as 
the  delegate  of  Jehovah.  The  appearance  is  very 
strong  that  the  adjunction  of  ‘ Lord  ’ is  intended  to 
convey  the  intelligence  that  the  ‘ Christ  ’ now  born  is 
a divine  Christ. 

This  appearance  is  greatly  strengthened  by  the  con- 
sideration that  the  appeal  to  prophecy  in  calling  the 
Messiah  ‘ the  Saviour  ’ is  an  appeal  to  the  great  series 
of  predictions  of  the  advent  of  Jehovah  for  the  re- 
demption of  His  people  (cf.  Mt  i“^)  : and  also  by 
the  general  context  in  which  this  annunciation  is  placed, 
which  contains  a sustained  attempt  to  make  the  super- 
naturalism of  this  birth  impressive,  and  includes  the 
declaration  that  the  child  here  designated  “ the  Saviour 
who  is  Christ  the  Lord  ” is  in  His  person  the  ‘ Son  of 
the  Most  High  God  ’ (Lk  and  is  marked  out  as  such 
by  a supernatural  birth  Nor  should  we  permit 

to  fall  out  of  our  sight  the  circumstance  that  this 
passage  occurs  in  a context  in  which  the  term  ‘ Lord  ’ 
appears  unusually  frequently,  and  always,  with  this  ex- 
ception and  that  of  of  Jehovah.  It  would  be  very 
difficult  for  the  simple  reader  to  read  of  the  angel  of 

22  Cf.  R.  Ziemssen,  Christus  der  Herr,  1867,  p.  19:  “In  any  event 
its  significance  is  gained  by  the  angelic  annunciation  only  if  we  take 
it  in  this  sense — Christ-Adhonai,  that  is,  Christ- Jehovah.” 


The  Jesus  of  the  Synoptists  145 

‘ the  Lord  ’ and  of  the  glory  of  ‘ the  Lord  ’ in  Lk  2®, 
and  of  ‘ the  Lord  ’ making  known  in  verse  15,  and,  in 
the  middle  of  these  statements,  of  ‘ Christ  the  Lord  ’ 
in  verse  ii,  and  not  institute  some  connection  between 
it  and  its  ever-repeated  fellows:  especially  when  he 
would  soon  read  in  verse  26,  of  “ the  Christ  of  the 
Lord.”  That  at  least  a superhuman  majesty  is  hei:e 
ascribed  to  Jesus  seems  scarcely  disputable:  and  there 
appears  a strong  likelihood  that  this  supernaturalness 
is  meant  to  rise  to  the  divine.  In  any  event  it  is  clear 
that  the  term  ‘ Lord  ’ is  sometimes  applied  to  Jesus 
in  the  Synoptics  in  a height  of  connotation  which  im- 
ports His  deity.^® 

It  is  not  necessary  to  add  further  evidence,  derived 
from  less  frequently  employed  designations  of  our 
Synoptical  ^ord,  that  a true  deity  is  ascribed  to 
Christ  Divine  person  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels.  On 
the  basis  of  the  considerations  already 
presented  it  is  abundantly  clear  that  the  Synoptists  con- 
ceived Jesus,  whom  they  identify  with  the  Messiah,  as 
a divine  person;  and  represent  Him  as  exercising  di- 
vine prerogatives  and  asserting  for  Himself  a divine 
personality  and  participation  in  the  divine  Name. 

; 23  The  nature  of  the  xupi6fq<s  ascribed  to  Jesus  in  the  Synoptics  is 
very  interestingly  expounded  by  Professor  Erich  Schaeder  in  two  lec- 
tures on  “The  Christology  of  the  Creeds  and  the  Modern  Theology,” 
printed  in  Schlatter  and  Liitgert’s  Beitrdge  zur  Fbrderung  christlicher 
Theologie,  ix.  5.  (1905).  That  this  Lord  of  spirits  and  of  the  world 
is  not  conceived  as  of  the  world,  he  makes  very  obvious.  “ It  is  non- 
sense to  suggest  that  the  world  itself  can  produce  its  Lord.  The  world 
can  produce  only  what  is  like  it,  not  one  who  stands  above  it”  (p.  201). 


THE  JESUS  OF  THE  SYNOPTISTS  THE 
PRIMITIVE  JESUS 


That  wc  may  estimate  the  significance  of  the  testi- 
mony to  the  Divine  Christ  which  we  have  seen  to  be 
Significance  borne  by  the  Synoptists,  we  must  bear 
of  Synoptical  in  mind  that  it  cannot  be  taken  as  merely 
Testimony  individual  opinion  of  three  writers. 

It  must  be  recognized  as  reflecting  the  consentient  con- 
viction of  the  community  which  these  three  writers  rep- 
resent and  for  which  they  wrote.  And  this  is  equiva- 
lent to  saying  that  we  have  here  the  conception  of  Jesus 
which  prevailed  in  the  primitive  age  of  the  Christian 
propaganda.^ 

This  might  not  be  so  obvious  if  we  could  follow 
certain  extremists  who,  largely  in  order  to  escape  this 

_ . . very  conclusion,  have  wished — formerly 

Date  of  the  . , i i 

Synoptics  much  greater  numbers  than  more  re- 
cently— to  assign  the  composition  of  the 
Synoptic  Gospels  to  a period  somewhat  late  in  the 
second  century.  It  will  be  allowed  by  most  reasonable 
men  to-day  that  these  Gospels-  were  all  written  before 
A.  D.  8o,  and  belong  at  latest  to  the  seventh  and  eighth 
decades  of  the  first  century.  Our  own  conviction  is 
very  clear  that  they  were  all  written  before  A.  D.  70, 
and  therefore  belong  to  the  seventh  decade  at  the 


^ Cf.  O.  Schmiedel,  Die  Hauptprohleine  der  Lehen-Jesu  Forscliun^ 
1906,  p.  35:  “The  early  Church  in  whose  circles  the  narratives  of 
the  life  of  Jesus  originated,  . . , was  at  one  in  its  acknowledg- 

ment of  Christ,  its  exalted  Lord.” 


147 


The  Synoptic  Jesus  Primitive 

latest.  In  the  seventh  decade  of  the  first  century,  there- 
fore, it  was  of  faith  in  the  Christian  community  that 
Jesus  Christ  was  a divine  person.  And  this  evidence 
is  retrospective.  What  was  with  such  firmness  uni- 
versally believed  of  the  nature  of  the  founder  of  the 
Christian  religion  in  the  seventh  decade  of  the  first 
century,  had  not  first  in  that  decade  become  the  faith 
of  the  Church.  But  only  a short  generation,  as  we 
conventionally  count  generations — something  like  five 
and  thirty  years — intervened  between  the  death  of 
Jesus  and  the  composition  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels. 
It  Is  impossible  to  suppose  that  the  conception  of  Jesus 
had  radically  altered  In  this  brief  Interval;  that  a primi- 
tive humanitarlanism  for  example  had  in  the  course  of 
thirty  or  forty  years  been  transformed  into  a universal 
conviction  of  the  deity  of  Jesus,  such  as  Is  expressed 
with  simplicity  and  unstudied  emphasis  In  our  Gospels. 
The  witness  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels  Is  accordingly  a 
witness  to  the  aboriginal  faith  of  Christians. 

Nor  is  the  force  of  this  conclusion  weakened  by  at- 
tempting to  get  behind  our  Gospels  and  appealing  to 
Earlier  ^^e  yet  earlier  documents  out  of  which 
Documentary  they  may  be  .thought  to  have  been 
Basis  framed.  Grant  that  our  Gospels  belong 
to  the  second  generation  of  documents;  and  that  behind 
them  He  still  earlier  documents  upon  which  they  de- 
pend. These  earlier  documents  cannot  be  presumed 
to  have  presented  a portrait  of  Jesus  radically  different 
from  that  which  all  three  of  their  representatives  have 
derived  from  them.  We  have  simply  pushed  back  ten, 
fifteen,  or  twenty  years  our  literary  testimony  to  the 
deity  of  Jesus:  and  how  can  we  suppose  that  the  de- 
terminative expression  of  the  Church’s  faith  In  A.  D. 


148  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

50  or  A.  D.  40  differed  radically  from  the  Church’s 
faith  in  A.  D.  30 — the  year  in  which  Jesus  died?  The 
assurance  that  our  Gospels  rest  on  earlier  documentary 
sources  becomes  thus  an  additional  assurance  that  the 
conception  of  the  person  of  Jesus  which  they  present 
in  concert  is  the  conception  which  held  the  mind  and 
heart  of  the  Church  from  the  very  beginning. 

How  fully  justified  this  conclusion  is  may  be  illus- 
trated by  examining  the  conception  of  Jesus  imbedded 
The  Sources  in  the  hypothetical  sources  which  the 
of  the  several  schools  of  criticism  reconstruct 

Synoptics  £qj.  gy^optics.  In  each  and  all  of 

them  is  found  the  same  portrait  of  the  supernatural 
Christ.  Probably  the  theory  of  the  origin  of  the  Syn- 
optics most  in  vogue  just  now  is  still  the  so-called  “ two- 
source  ” theory,  in  some  one  or  other  of  its  forms. 
According  to  this  theory,  our  three  Synoptics  in  their 
main  substance  are  compounded  out  of  two  important 
primitive  documents,  which  may  be  conveniently  called 
‘ the  original  Mark  ’ and  ‘ the  Matthean  sayings.’ 
The  former  of  these  is  supposed  to  be  substantially 
and,  in  the  view  of  many  critics,  very  closely  indeed,  rep- 
resented by  our  present  Mark;  while  from  the  latter 
a good  portion  of  the  material  in  Matthew  and  Luke 
not  also  contained  in  Mark  is  thought  to  be  derived, 

' — certainly  what  is  common  to  these  two  Gospels  apart 
from  Mark,  and  doubtless  also  something  not  repro- 
duced in  both  of  them.  According  to  the  present  most 
fashionable  form  of  this  theory,  then,  we  are  reading 
K substantially  a primitive  evangelical  document  when 
> we  read  our  present  Mark.  Some  suppose  the  primi- 
tive Mark  to  have  been  a longer  document  than  our 
present  Mark,  some  suppose  it  to  have  been  a shorter 


The  Synoptic  Jesus  Primitive  149 

document,  some  suppose  it  to  have  differed  from  It 
not  more  than  one  textual  recension  may  differ  from 
another, — say  a “ Western  ” MS.  of  Luke  from  a 
“ Neutral  ” one.  But  few  would  care  to  contend  that 
the  general  portrait  of  Jesus  drawn  in  it  differed 
markedly  from  that  which  lies  on  the  pages  of  our 
present  Mark.  The  Jesus  brought  before  us  In  our 
present  Mark,  however,  is,  as  we  have  seen,  distinctly 
and  distinctively  a supernatural  person:  and  it  must 
have  been  this  same  distinctly  and  distinctively  super- 
natural Jesus,  therefore,  which  was  set  forth  in  the 
primitive  Mark. 

Indeed,  we  can  demonstrate  this  without  difficulty. 
For  it  is  easy  to  show  that  it  is  impossible  to  construct 
Christology  a primitive  Mark  which  will  not  contain 
of  the  this  portrait  of  a supernatural  Jesus. 

Primitive  Mark  what  is  probably  the  most  irra- 

tional hypothesis  of  the  nature  of  the  primitive  Mark 
which  has  ever  been  suggested, — that  which  would  con- 
fine its  contents  strictly  to  the  matter  common  to  all 
three  Synoptics,  as  if  each  Gospel  must  be  supposed 
to  have  transferred  into  its  substance  every  word  which 
stood  in  this  common  source  of  them  all.  Even  in  the 
broken  sentences  of  the  absurd  “ telegraphese  ” Gos- 
pel,* which  on  this  hypothesis  is  supposed  to  represent 
the  primitive  evangelical  document,  the  portrait  of  the 
divine  Christ  is  ineffaceably  imbedded.  In  it,  as  in 
the  larger  Mark,  the  stress  of  the  presentation  is  laid 

2Cf.  E.  A.  Abbott  and  W.  G.  Rushbrooke,  The  Common  Tradition 
of  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  etc.,  1884,  p.  xi:  “Is  it  not  possible  that  the 
condensed  narrative  which  we  can  pick  out  of  the  three  Synoptic  rec- 
ords represents  the  ‘elliptical  style’  of  the  earliest  Gospel  notes  or 
Memoirs,  which  needed  to  be  ‘expanded’  before  they  could  be  used 
for  the  purpose  of  teaching  ...  ? ” 


150  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

on  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus,  which  is  copiously  and 
variously  witnessed.  Peter  in  his  great  confession  de- 
clares Him  the  ‘Christ’  (8^^)  and  the  declaration  is 
accepted  by  Jesus  Himself;  as  also,  when  adjured  by 
the  High  Priest  at  His  trial  to  say  whether  He  is  the 
‘ Christ,’  He  acknowledges  that  He  is,  in  the  highest 
sense  (14®^’®-).  The  implied  claim  to  kingly  estate 
He  also  expressly  makes  (15-’^“)  ; as  also  the  involved 
claim  of  being  the  promised  ‘ Son  of  David  ’ ( 10^^’^^), 
— although  His  conception  of  the  Messiahship  was  so 
little  exhausted  by  this  claim  that  He  takes  pains  to 
point  out  that  the  Messiah  was  acknowledged  by  David 
himself  to  be  his  ‘ Lord,’  using  the  term  obviously  in 
a high  sense.  (12^^).  That  He  was  familiarly  spoken 
of  by  His  disciples  as  ‘ Lord  ’ is  also  made  evident 
( 1 1^)  ; and  He  Himself  asserts  that  His  Lordship  is 
high  enough  to  give  Him  authority  over  the  religious 
ordinances  of  Israel  (2-®).  The  tradition  applies,  in- 
deed, the  term  ‘ Lord  ’ to  Him  in  citations  from  the 
Old  Testament,  where  it  stands  for  Jehovah  Himself 
(i^).  The  evil  spirits  greet  Him  by  the  high  title  of 
‘ Son  of  God  ’ (5^),  and  the  same  title  is  suggested 
to  Him  as  a synonym  of  the  Messiah  in  His  accusa- 
tion (14^^),  and  in  neither  case  is  it  repelled.  He 
Himself  indeed  in  a parable  represents  Himself  as  in  a 
unique  sense  the  ‘ Son  ’ and  ‘ Heir  ’ of  God,  differen- 
tiated as  such  from  all  “ servants  ” whatsoever  (12®’'^)  ; 
and  receives  the  testimony  of  heaven  itself  that  He  is 
God’s  ‘Son’  and  His  ‘beloved  Son’  ( P'  9^).  He 
speaks  of  Himself,  however,  with  more  predilection  as 
the  ‘Son  of  Man’;  and  under  this  self-designation 
He  asserts  for  Himself  power  over  the  religious  ordi- 
nances of  Israel  (2“®),  and  even  the  divine  prerogative 


The  Synoptic  Jesus  Primitive  1 5 1 

of  forgiving  sins  (2^^),  although  He  anticipates  for 
Himself  only  a career  of  suffering,  predicting  that  He 
will  be  betrayed  (14^^)  into  the  hands  of  men  (9^^) 
who  shall  mock  and  scourge  and  kill  Him  (10^^). 
Afterwards,  however.  He  shall  rise  again  (10^^)  and 
ascend  to  the  right  hand  of  power  (14^“),  whence  He 
shall  return  in  clouds  with  great  power  and  glory 
(13-®),  the  glory  of  the  Father  and  the  angels  (8^®). 
It  is  clear  that  the  designation  ‘ Son  of  Man  ’ is  derived 
from  Daniel  (13"^  14^-)  and  the  portrait 

presented  under  it  is  that  of  a being  of  more  than 
human  powers  and  attributes.  In  complete  harmony 
with  this  portrait  He  is  represented  as  calling  Himself 
also  ‘the  Bridegroom’  (2^^’^^),  charged  as  that  term 
was  with  Old  Testament  associations  with  Jehovah 
(cf.  ‘ Lord  ’ of  i^)  ; and  in  immediate  connection  with 
this  high  designation,  too.  He  speaks  of  His  death, 
thus  instituting  a close  parallel  between  this  designa- 
tion and  that  of  the  ‘ Son  of  Man.’  In  both  alike, 
indeed.  He  evidently  is  regarded  as  presenting  Himself 
as  a personage  of  superhuman,  or  rather  of  divine 
quality,  who  has  come  to  earth  (12^^)  only  on  a mission 
and  who  suffers  and  dies  here  only  to  fulfill  that 
mission.® 

3 There  may  be  compared  with  this  sketch  the  minimizing  account 
which  von  Soden  {History  of  Early  Christian  Literature,  1906,  p.  144), 
gives  of  the  christology  of  the  primitive  “ Mark,”  which  according  to 
him  was  of  somewhat  wider  compass  than  what  we  have  allowed  it. 
“ Somewhat  more  frequently,”  he  says,  “ than  in  the  Logia  of  St.  Mat- 
thew, stress  is  laid  upon  the  Messianic  character  of  Jesus — for  instance, 
in  the  narrative  of  the  Baptism  seq.)^  in  the  cry  of  the  possessed 

(i24),  in  the  simile  of  the  bridegroom  (2^®),  in  the  question  concerning 
the  Davidic  sonship  of  the  Messiah  perhaps  in  the  claim  to 

forgive  sin  (2^®)  ; again,  on  the  part  of  the  disciples  in  their  confes- 
sion (823),  and  in  the  petition  of  the  sons  of  the  Zebedee  ; 


152  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

No  doubt  there  are  some  striking  phrases  occurring 
in  our  present  Mark  which  are  lacking  from  this  series 
Other  Possible  of  broken  extracts  from  it.  But  the 
Elements  in  the  same  figure  is  here  outlined.  And  most 
Primitive  Mark  these  Striking  phrases  are  re- 

stored if  we  will  attend  also  to  passages  common  to 
Mark  and  one  of  the  other  evangelists,  of  which  it 
would  be  hard  to  deny  that  they  may  therefore  have 
had  a place  in  the  primitive  document  underlying  all 
three.  Thus,  for  example,  in  the  fragments  peculiar 
to  Matthew  and  Mark,  while  Jesus  is  not  addressed 
as  ‘ Lord ' except  by  the  Syro-Phoenician  woman  ( Mk 
7“®,  Mt  15^^),  and  is  not  spoken  of  at  all  by  the  general 
Messianic  designation,  ‘ the  Christ,’  He  yet  does  call 
Himself  both  the  ‘ Son  of  Man,’  and  undefinedly,  ‘ the 
Son.’  As  ‘ Son  of  Man,’  he  asserts.  He  “ came  ” to 
execute  a great  mission,  not  to  be  ministered  unto  but 
to  minister,  and  to  give  His  life  a ransom  for  many 
(Mk  Mt  20“®),  and  therefore  has  a prospect 

of  suffering  before  Him  (Mk  9^^  Mt  17^^,  Mk  I4^h 

finally  on  the  part  of  our  Lord,  the  disciples,  and  the  people,  in  the 
story  of  the  entry  into  Jerusalem  (ii^  seq.).  However,  the  expression 
‘Son  of  God’  never  occurs  except  in  the  voice  at  the  Baptism 
and  in  the  utterance  of  13®^,  though  elsewhere  in  the  Gospel  it  forms 
the  proper  formula  for  profession  of  belief  (i^  3^^  5'^  9'^  14®^  15^®)  i 
and  the  word  ‘ Christ  ’ only  occurs  in  the  Confession  of  the  Twelve 
(8-^),  and  in  the  theological  dispute  of  though  it  likewise  is 

often  employed  elsewhere  by  the  evangelist  1321  1461  15^2). 

The  term  ‘ Son  of  Man  ’ is  found  in  210.28  jo33,45^  as  also  in  1421. 
if  indeed  these  parts  of  the  story  of  the  Passion  belong  to  the  group  of 
which  we  are  speaking;  while  in  the  sections  due  to  the  evangelist  it 
occurs  only  in  99.12,31  after  the  pattern  of  8®i  and  One  cannot 

help  admiring  the  skill  with  which  the  attention  of  the  reader  is  kept 
from  dwelling  on  the  fact  that  all  the  significant,  high  designations  of 
Jesus  are  left  in  the  fragment  of  the  Gospel  which  is  allowed  to  be 
primitive;  but  the  fact  cannot  even  so  be  totally  obscured. 


The  Synoptic  Jesus  Primitive  153 

Mt  26^®),  but  dies  only  to  rise  again  (Mk  9®,  Mt  17^). 
As  ‘Son’  He  represents  Himself  as  of  superangelic 
dignity,  and  therefore  above  all  creatures,  standing  next 
to  God  Himself  (Mk  13^^,  Mt  24^®).  In  the  pas- 
sages peculiar  to  Mark  and  Luke,  we  find  Him  testi- 
fied to  as  the  Messiah  by  the  demons,  who,  although 
they  know  His  earthly  origin  (‘Jesus  of  Nazareth’), 
profess  to  know  Him  also  to  be  the  ‘ Holy  One  of 
God,’  (Mk  I2^  Lk  4^^)  and  the  ‘Son  of  the  Most' 
High  God’  (Mk  5"^,  Lk  8^^)T  Not  only  does  He 
not  repel  these  ascriptions,  but  He  speaks  of  Himself 
as  the  ‘ Son  of  Man,’  teaching  that  He  is  to  suffer 
many  things  and  be  killed,  but  after  three  days  to  rise 
again  (Mk  Lk  9^^).  A primitive  gospel  contain- 
ing all  this  falls  short  in  nothing  of  the  testimony  borne 
by  our  present  Mark  to  our  Lord’s  higher  nature. 

It  is  not  neccessary  for  our  purpose  to  expend  effort 
in  endeavoring  to  ascertain  the  compass  most  com- 
Christology  of  monly  attributed  to  the  second  hypo- 
the  ‘Primitive  thetical  document  supposed  to  underlie 
Sayings*  Synoptics,  the  so-called,  and  let  us 

add,  very  much  miscalled,  “ Logia.”*  We  may  as  well 
at  once  direct  our  eyes  to  its  minimum  contents, — the 

4 The  reconstruction  of  these  so-called  “Logia”  by  Harnack  in  his 
SprUche  und  Reden  Jesu,  etc.,  1907,  PP-  88-102,  provides  one  of  the 
most  convenient  and  accessible  forms  in  which  they  may  be  studied, 
although  Harnack  (like  Wellhausen)  deprives  them  of  the  Passion 
story,  and  even  eliminates  the  conception  of  the  Passion  from  them 
(see  to  the  contrary,  Burkitt,  The  Gospel  History  and  its  Transmis- 
sion, 1907).  Their  christology  is  minimizingly  described  by  von 
Soden,  History  of  Early  Christian  Literature,  1906,  pp.  136,  137. 
While  asserting  that  the  claim  advanced  for  Jesus  in  this  document  is 
“ scarcely  more  than  any  master  might  make  on  his  disciples,”  von 
Soden  is  yet  constrained  to  allow  that  “ a higher  self-consciousness  may 
be  clearly  traced  in  the  background.”  “ The  word  ‘ Christ,’  ” he  con- 


154  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

passages  peculiar  to  Matthew  and  Luke, — even  in  the 
meager  compass  of  which  we  shall  find  evidence  enough 
that  this  document,  whatever  Its  extent,  presented  Jesus 
as  a Divine  Being.  That  He  was  the  Messiah  He  Is 
represented  as  Himself  Indicating  by  pointing  to  His 
works  (Mt  ii^,  Lk  7^^),  which,  He  Intimates,  evi- 
dently on  the  basis  of  Isaiah  6i\  accredit  Him  as  the 
‘ One  who  was  to  Come.’  It  Is  apparently  as  Messiah 
that  He  is  addressed  as  ‘Lord’  (Mt  Lk  7®),  and 
He  is  represented  as  adverting  to  this  customary  mode 
of  addressing  Him  in  order  to  declare  that  It  Is  not 
merely  verbal  recognition  of  His  authority  but  actual 
obedience  to  His  v/ords  alone  which  will  constitute 
a claim  upon  His  mercy  (Mt  7“h  Lk  6^®) — where. 
It  is  to  be  noted.  He  presents  Himself  as  ‘ Lord  ’ of 
the  destinies  of  men,  by  their  relations  to  whom  men 
stand  or  fall.  He  is  accordingly  appropriately  spoken 
V to  by  Satan  as  ‘ Son  of  God  ’ (Mt  4^’^  Lk  4^’^)  ; and 
currently  calls  Himself  by  the  great  Danielle  title  of 
‘ Son  of  Man.’  He  explains  that  this  ‘ Son  of  Man  ’ 
has  come  In  the  fashion  of  men,  “ eating  and  drink- 
ing ” (Mt  Lk  7^^),  and  living  a hard  life  (Mt 
8“^,  Lk  9^^) — ending  in  betrayal  and  death  (Mt  26^®, 
Lk  22^'^)  ; but  after  death  is  to  rise  again  (Mt  12^^, 
Lk  But  even  while  on  earth  He  asserts  for 

Himself  an  unbroken  communion  with  God,  or  rather 
a continuous  Intercommunion  of  Himself  as  ‘ Son  ’ with 

tinues,  “ which  occurs  twelve  times  elsewhere  in  St.  Luke,  together 
with  the  expression  ‘ Son  of  God,’  which  elsewhere  occurs  nine  times, 
does  not  occur  in  our  compilation  of  sayings.  Messianic  tone  and  col- 
oring, however,  declare  themselves  in  the  sayings  (lyssseq.,  26  iq22)^ 
and  in  the  parable  and,  besides,  the  expression  ‘Son  of 

Man.’  ” How  inadequate  this  is  as  a representation  of  the  teaching  of 
the  material  common  to  Matthew  and  Luke  concerning  our  Lord’s  self- 


155 


The  Synoptic  Jesus  Primitive 

the  ‘ Father’  (Mt  ii“h  Lk  I0“-)  ; knowing  the  Father 
as  perfectly  as  He  Is  known  by  the  Father,  and  there- 
fore able  to  make  known  the  Father  as  His  sole  ade- 
quate revelation  to  men.  In  this  great  passage  we  have 
(what  must  be  considered  the  culminating  assertion  on 
■ our  Lord’s  part  of  His  essential  deity. 

It  Is  clear,  then,  that  the  documents  which,  even  In 
the  view  of  the  most  unreasonable  criticism,  are  sup- 
Resort  to  posed  to  underlie  the  structure  of  our 

* Historical  present  Synoptics  are  freighted  with  the 
Criticism’  same  teaching  which  these  Gospels  them- 
selves embody  as  to  the  person  of  our  Lord.  Literary 
criticism  cannot  penetrate  to  any  stratum  of  belief  more 
primitive  than  this.  We  may  sink  our  trial  shafts 
down  through  the  soil  of  the  Gospel  tradition  at  any 
point  we  please;  it  is  only  conformable  strata  that  we 
pierce.  So  far  as  the  tradition  goes,  it_.glves  xonr. 
s^tlent  testimony  to  an  aboriginal  faith  In  the  deity 
of  the  founder  of  the  religion  of  Christianity.  In 
these  circumstances  It  Is  not  strange  that  another  mode 
of  analysis  Is  attempted.  Literary  criticism  Is  aban- 
doned for  historical  criticism:  and  we  are  Invited  to 
distinguish  In  our  Gospels  not  between  later  and  older 
documentary  strata,  but  between  narrative  and  repor- 
torial  elements.  We  do  not  wish  to  know.  It  Is  said,  what 
Matthew,  Mark  or  Luke  thought,  or  what  was  thought 
by  those  represented  by  them  or  by  any  predecessor 
of  theirs — the  Christian  community  to  wit,  even  the 
^primitive  Christian  community.  What  we  wish  to  Imow 
vis  what  Jesus  Himself  thought.  We  appeal  from  the 
^representation  of  Jesus  given  by  His  followers  to  the 
self-testimony  of  Jesus.  Let  us  have  Jesus’  own  con- 
ception of  Himself. 


156 


The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 


It  Is  not  necessary  to  spend  much  time  upon  this 
demand  In  Its  simplest  form,  that,  namely,  which  would 
The  Reportorial  merely  separate  out  from  the  Synoptic 
Element  in  the  Gospels  as  they  stand  the  words  attrlb- 
Gospels  Jesus,  and  seek  to  ascertain  from 

them  Jesus’  witness  to  the  nature  of  His  person 
and  the  quality  of  His  dignity.  It  must  have  been  ob- 
served as  we  ran  over  the  designations  applied  to  our 
Lord  In  the  Gospels  and  sought  to  estimate  their  sig- 
nificance, that  the  most  remarkable  of  them  are  drawn 
from  the  words  of  Jesus.  The  fact  Is  too  patent  and 
striking  to  have  failed  to  attract  attention:  the  higher 
teaching  of  the  Gospels  as  to  our  Lord’s  person  Is 
embodied  very  especially  In  His  own  words.  It  Is  on 
His  lips,  for  example,  that  the  term  ‘ Lord  ’ appears 
when  employed  In  its  loftiest  connections.  It  Is  He 
alone  who  applies  to  Himself  the  significant  title  of  ‘ Son 
of  Man,’  the  vehicle  of  the  most  constant  claim  for 
Him  of  a superhuman  nature.  It  Is  He  alone  who, 
speaking  out  of  His  own  consciousness,  proclaims  Him- 
self superior  to  those  highest  of  God’s  creatures,  the 
! angels  (Mk  13^^  Mt  24^^)  : represents  Himself  as 
living  In  continuous  and  perfect  Intercommunion  with 
the  Father,  knowing  Him  even  as  He  Is  known  by 
Him  and  acting  as  the  sole  adequate  mediator  alike 
of  the  knowledge  of  God  and  of  the  grace  of  God  to 
men  (Mt  ii^^,  Lk  10^^):  and  In  His  great  closing 
utterance  places  Himself,  along  with  the  Father  and 
Holy  Spirit  and  equally  with  them,  even  In  the  awful 
precincts  of  the  Divine  Name  Itself  (Mt  28^^).  To 
separate  between  the  narrative  and  reportorial  elements 
of  the  Gospels,  therefore,  only  brings  home  to  us  with 
peculiar  poignancy  the  testimony  they  bear  to  the  deity 


157 


The  Synoptic  Jesus  Primitive 

of  our  Lord,  resting  this  testimony,  as  they  do,  on  the 
firm  basis  of  our  Lord’s  own  self-testimony — a self- 
testimony In  which  He  at  times  lays  bare  to  us  the  In- 
nermost depths  of  His  divine  self-consciousness. 

There  can  be  no  question  of  the  deity  of  our  Lord, 
therefore.  If  we  can  trust  the  report  which  the  evangel- 
ists give  of  His  words.  It  Is  at  this  point,  however. 
Trustworthiness  that  the  assault  on  the  validity  of  their 
of  the  Evangel-  representation  Is  made.  We  are  not 
ical  Report  asked  to  distinguish  between  what  the 
evangelists  say  In  their  own  person  and  what  they  say 
In  the  person  of  Jesus.  We  are  asked  to  distinguish 
(fttween  what  Is  really  theirs  In  their  account  of  the 
life  and  teaching  of  Jesus  and  what  Is  really  Jesus’ 
own  transcribed  Into  their  narratives.  It  Is  suggested 
^that  they  may  have,  or  rather  that  they  must  have,  and 
actually  have,  attributed  much  to  Jesus  which  He  never 
said;  that  they  have  read  back  their  own  Ideas  Into 
His  teaching,  and  unconsciously — or  more  or  less  con- 
sciously— placed  on  His  lips  what  was  In  point  of  fact 
the  dogmatic  elaborations  of  the  later  Christian  com- 
munity. And  It  is  demanded  that  we,  therefore,  sub- 
ject the  whole  body  of  the  evangelic  representation  of 
Jesus’  teaching  to  the  most  searchingly  critical  scrutiny 
with  a view  to  sifting  out  from  It  what  may  really  be 
depended  upon  as  Jesus’  own.  Thus  only,  we  are  told, 
will  It  be  possible  to  find  firm  footing.  Faith  Is  the 
foe  of  fact : and  In  the  enthusiasm  of  their  devotion  to 
Jesus  It  was  Inevitable  that  His  followers  should  clothe 
Him  in  their  thought  of  Him  with  attributes  which 
He  did  not  possess  and  never  dreamed  of  claiming: 
and  It  was  equally  Inevitable  that  they  should  Imagine 
that  He  must  have  claimed  them  and  have  ended  by 


158 


The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 


representing  Him  as  claiming  them.  We  shall  never 
know  the  truth  about  Jesus,  therefore,  we  are  told, 
until  we  penetrate  behind  the  Jesus  of  the  evangelists 
to  the  Jesus  that  really  was. 

The  situation  might  not  have  been  so  bad,  we  are 
told,  if  the  evangelists  had  been  merely  transmitters 
of  a tradition,  like,  say,  the  rabbinical 


Fact  schools.  But  there  is  an  essential  dif- 
ference between  the  two  cases,  a differ- 
ence which  casts  us  with  respect  to  the  evangelic  tradi- 
tion into  graxe  doubt.  This  difference  is  due  to  the 
unfortunate  fact  that  the  evangelists  themselves  be- 
lieved in  Jesus  and  loved  Him.  “ In  our  case,”  there- 
fore, we  are  told,®  “ we  have  not  merely  pupils  trans- 
mitting the  teaching  of  their  master,  but  a believing 
community  speaking  of  one  they  honor  as  the  exalted 
Lord.  Even  the  oldest  Gospel  is  written  from  the 
standpoint  of  faith;  already  for  Mark  Jesus  is  not 
only  the  Messiah  of  the  Jewish  people,  but  the  miracu- 
lous eternal  Son  of  God  whose  glory  shone  in  the 
world.”®  “ And  it  has  been  rightly  emphasized  that  in 
this  regard  our  three  first  Gospels  are  distinguished 
Jrom  the  fourth  only  in  degree.  Must  there  not,  then, 
have  taken  place  here  a complete  repainting  from  the 
standpoint  of  faith?  For  there  Is  a certain  propriety 
in  saying  that  faith  Is  the  enemy  of  history.  Where 
we  believe  and  honor,  we  no  longer  see  objectively.” 
Accordingly  we  are  told  that  the  deepest  longing  of 
men’s  hearts  to-day  Is  to  rediscover  the  real  Jesus. 


® By  Bousset,  Was  fwissen  nvir  <von  Jesus?  1904,  pp.  54  seq. 

® Cf.  p.  57:  “ For  the  belief  of  the  community,  which  is  shared  already 
by  the  oldest  evangelist,  Jesus  is  the  miraculous  Son  of  God,  on  whom 
men  believe,  whom  men  put  wholly  by  God’s  side.”  And  cf.  Wrede, 
Das  Messiasseheimnis  in  den  Evans^elien,  1901,  passim. 


The  Synoptic  Jesus  Primitive  159 

“ There  Is  a great  desire  to  know  Him  at  first  hand,” 
It  Is  said,’'  “not  merely  through  the  loving  vision  of 
His  earliest  interpreters,  but  as  He  looked  and  spoke 
and  worked  and  thought.”  Which  Is  as  much  as  to  say 
that  the  vision  the  evangelists  give  us  of  Jesus  Is 
not  conformable  to  the  reality,  but  has  been  distorted 
by  their  love.  If  we  wish  the  bald  truth  about  Him 
and  His  claims  we  must  go  behind  them. 

This  point  of  view,  it  will  be  observed.  Is  definite 
enough.  The  evangelists  are  not  to  be  trusted  In  the 
Primary  report  they  give  of  the  teaching  of 
Canon  of  Jesus  about  Himself.  But  embarrassing 
Criticism  questions  remain.  Above  all,  these  em- 
barrassing questions : Why  should  we  not  trust  the 

evangelists’  report  of  Jesus’  teaching  as  to  His  own 
nature?  And,  distrusting  them,  how  are  we  to  get  be- 
hind their  report?  That  the  evangelists  believed  In 
Jesus  and  loved  Him  does  not  seem  In  itself  an  abso*- 
lutely  compelling  reason  why  we  should  distrust  their 
report  of  His  teaching  concerning  His  own  nature. 
Suppose  we  assume  for  the  moment  that  Jesus  did 
assert  for  Himself  superhuman  dignity.  How  does  It 
throw  doubt  upon  that  fact  that  those  who  report  It 
to  us  were  led — possibly  by  overwhelming  evidence  of 
Its  truth — to  believe  that  In  so  asserting  He  spoke  truly  ? 
Are  we  to  lay  It  down  as  the  primary  canon  of  criticism 
that  no  sympathetic  report  of  a master’s  teaching  Is 
trustworthy;  that  only  Inimical  reporters  are  credible 
reporters? 

Absurd  as  it  seems,  this  Is  the  actual  canon  of  critical 
reconstruction  upon  which  our  would-be  guides.  In  re- 

Jesus  the  Prophet,  by  Charles  S.  MacFarland,  Ph.D.,  1905;  intro- 
duction by  Prof.  Frank  K.  Sanders. 


i6o  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

covering  from  the  obscuring  hands  of  the  evangelists 
the  real  Jesus,  would  have  us  proceed.  It  has  found 
somewhat  notorious  enunciation  in  Professor  Schmie- 
del’s  article  “ Gospels  ” in  the  Encyclopedia  Bihlica.^ 
But  it  is  so  far  from  being  peculiar  to  Professor  Schmie- 
del  that  it  is  the  common  foundation  stone  upon  which 
the  whole  school  of  criticism  with  which  we  are  now 
concerned  builds  its  attempt  to  penetrate  behind  the 
evangelical  narratives  and  to  recover  from  these  an 
earlier  and  therefore  presumably  truer  picture  of  Jesus 
and  His  claims.®  Under  its  guidance  we  are  set  to 
searching  diligently  through  the  evangelical  narratives 
(as  if  for  hid  treasures)  for  sentences  or  fragments 
of  sentences  in  the  reported  words  of  Jesus,  which 
appear,  or  may  be  made  to  appear,  out  of  harmony 
with  the  high  claims  He  is  consentiently  and  constantly 
reported  by  all  the  evangelists  to  have  made  for  Him- 
self : and  on  these  few  broken  passages,  torn  from  their 

® P.  1872:  “When  a profane  historian  finds  before  him  a historical 
document  which  testifies  to  the  worship  of  a hero  unknown  to  other 
sources,  he  attaches  first  and  foremost  importance  to  those  features 
which  cannot  be  deduced  merely  from  the  fact  of  this  worship,  and  he 
does  so  on  the  simple  and  sufficient  ground  that  they  would  not  be 
found  in  this  source  unless  the  author  had  met  with  them  as  the  fixed 
data  of  tradition.  The  same  fundamental  principle  may  safely  be  ap- 
plied in  the  case  of  the  Gospels,  for  they  also  are  all  of  them  written 
by  worshipers  of  Jesus.” 

® Cf.  e.g.  Shailer  Mathews,  The  Messianic  Hope  in  the  N.  T.,  1905, 
p.  58:  “At  this  point  we  may  safely  use  this  canon:  that  saying  is  more 
probably  genuine  which  treats  of  Messianic  matters  in  any  other  way 
than  that  which  characterized  apostolic  belief.”  “ The  trustworthiness 
of  sayings  which  do  not  contradict,  but  agree  with,  apostolic  belief 
must  be  decided  on  . . . more  general  critical  grounds.”  It  is  the 

same  canon  which  Prof.  N.  Schmidt,  The  Prophet  of  Nazareth,  1905, 
lays  down  in  the  words  (p.  235);  “These  sayings  possess  evidential 
value  just  in  proportion  as  they  contradict  the  notions  current  in  the 
circles  through  which  they  were  transmitted.” 


The  Sy  nop  tic  J es  us  Pri  mi  live  1 6 1 

context  and  shredded  in  their  own  contents,  is  erected, 
as  on  its  foundation  stone,  a totally  new  portrait  of 
Jesus,  expressing  a totally  new  self-consciousness, — 
which  stands  related  to  the  Jesus  of  the  evangelists 
and  the  self-consciousness  which  is  ascribed  to  Him  in 
their  account,  of  course,  as  its  precise  contradictory, — 
seeing  that  it  is  precisely  on  the  principle  of  contradic- 
tion that  it  has  been  concocted. 

Surely  we  do  not  need  to  pause  to  point  out  that 
the  procedure  we  are  here  invited  to  adopt  is  a pre- 
scription for  historical  investigation  which  must  always 
issue  in  reversing  the  portraiture  of  the  historical  char- 
acters to  the  records  of  whose  lives  it  is  applied.  The 
result  of  its  universal  application  would  be,  so  to  speak, 
the  writing  of  all  history  backwards  and  the  adorn- 
ment of  its  annals  with  a series  of  portraits  which  would 
have  this  only  to  recommend  them,  that  they  represent 
every  historical  character  as  the  exact  contrast  to  what 
each  was  thought  to  be  by  all  who  knew  and  esteemed 
him.  The  absurdity  and  wrong  of  invoking  such  a 
canon  in  the  case  of  our  Synoptic  Gospels  are  pecu- 
liarly flagrant,  inasmuch  as  these  Gospels,  as  we  have 
seen,  and  as  these  very  critics  are  frank  to  allow,  are 
themselves  of  very  early  date  and  rest  on  a documentary 
basis,  quite  at  one  with  them  in  the  portrait  they  draw 
of  Jesus,  which  is  naturally  earlier  than  themselves; 
and  therefore  reflect  the  universal  conviction  of  the 
first  generation  of  Christians.  It  is  really  impossible 
to  doubt  that  they  bring  to  us  the  aboriginal  testimony 
of  the  primitive  Church — a Church  which  included 
in  its  membership  a considerable  number  of  actual  eye- 
witnesses of  Jesus  and  ear-witnesses  of  His  teaching, 
— as  to  His  claims  and  personality. 


i62 


The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

The  absolute  unanimity  of  that  Church  in  its  view 
of  Jesus  is  very  strikingly  illustrated  by  the  difficulty  of 
Futility  of  discovering  passages  imbedded  in  our 
This  Canon  Gospels  which  Can  be  used  as  a founda- 
tion for  the  opposing  portraiture  of 
Jesus  which  the  critics  would  fain  draw.  Professor 
Schmiedel  can  by  the  utmost  sharpness  of  inquisition 
find  only  five,  which  by  applying  more  exegetical  pres- 
sure he  can  increase  only  to  nine.  The  groundlessness 
of  this  assault  on  the  trustworthiness  of  the  portrait 
of  Jesus  presented  in  our  Synoptics  may  fairly  be  said, 
therefore,  to  be  matched  by  its  resultlessness.  Mate- 
rial cannot  be  gathered  from  our  Gospels  out  of  which 
a naturalistic  Christ  can  be  created.  The  method  of 
criticism  adopted  being  purely  subjective,  moreover,  the 
assumed  results  naturally  vary  endlessly.  We  feel  a 
certain  sympathy,  therefore,  with  the  position  assumed 
by  those  writers  who  frankly  admit  that,  the  evangel- 
ical portraiture  of  Jesus  being  distrusted,  the  real  Jesus 
is  hopelessly  lost  to  our  sight.  Strive  as  we  may,  we 
are  told,  we  cannot  penetrate  behind  the  Jesus  of  our 
first  informants — the  writers  of  the  New  Testament, 
upon  whose  palette  had  already  been  mingled,  never- 
theless, colors  derived  from  Jewish  prophecy.  Rabbinic 
teaching.  Oriental  gnosis  and  Christian  philosophy. 
“ All  that  can  be  d_etermined  with  certainty  from  these 
writings,”  it  is  declared,  “ is  that  conception  of  Christ 
which  was  the  object  of  faith  of  the  early  Christian 
communities  and  their  teachers”:  the  real  Jesus  is 
hopelessly  hidden  under  the  incrustations  with  which 
faith  has  enveloped  it.^°  Nor  does  there  seem  to  be 

So,  Pfleiderer,  The  Early  Christian  Conception  of  Christ,  E.  T., 
1905. 


The  Synoptic  Jesus  Primitive  163 

lacking  a certain  logical  force  In  the  reasoning  of  bolder 
souls^^  who  drive  the  Inference  one  step  further  and  ask 
what  need  there  Is  of  assuming  a real  Jesus  at  all.  The 
real  Jesus  ” whom  the  critics  Invent  certainly  was 
not  the  author  of  the  Christianity  that  exists.  If  the 
Christianity  that  actually  exists  In  the  world  can  get 
along  without  the  Jesus  which  alone  would  account  for 
It,  why,  they  argue,  must  there  be  assumed  behind  It  a 
Jesus  which  will  not  account  for  It;  of  whom  this  only 
may  be  said, — that  He  Is  a useless  figure,  the  assump- 
tion of  whom  Is  so  far  from  accounting  for  that  great 
religious  movement  which  we  call  Christianity,  that  It 
ri's  certain  that  the  movement  did  not  arise  In  Him  and 
did  not  derive  Its  fundamental  convictions  from  Him? 
Let  us,  then,  assume,  they  say,  that  there  never  was 
any  such  person  as  Jesus  at  all,  and  the  picture  drawn 
of  Him  In  the  evangelists  Is  pure  myth. 

It  Is  Interesting — almost  amusing — to  observe  our 
disintegrating  critics  over  against  this  more  radical  em- 
Can  We  ployment  of  their  own  methods,  suddenly 
Save  Any  Jesus  taking  up  the  role  of  “ apologists 
at  All?  writing  so  In  the  spirit  and  with 

the  adoption  of  so  many  of  the  exact  arguments  of  the 
“ apologists,”  whom  they  have  been  wont  to  despise, 
as  to  lead  the  reader  to  exclaim,  “ Are  these,  too,  among 
the  prophets?  ” It  Is  all,  however.  In  vain.  The  fatal 
subjectivity  which  underlies  their  own  view  reasserts 
Itself  In  the  end  and  leaves  them  without  adequate  de- 
fense against  extremists,  simply  because  whether  one 

E.g.  Albert  Kalthoff,  Das  Christus-Problem^  and  Die  Entstehung 
des  Christentums,  1904;  and  William  Benjamin  Smith,  Ne^  Testa- 
ment Criticism,  Status  and  Drift  of.  Art.  in  the  “ Encyclopaedia  Ameri- 
cana,” and,  more  fully,  Der  ‘vorchristliche  Jesus,  etc.,  1906. 

^2  E.g.  Bousset,  Was  nuissen  ^wir  von  Jesus  f 1904. 


164  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

stops  with  .them  or  goes  on  with  the  others  is  not  a 
matter  of  principle,  but  only  of  temperament.  It  is 
just  as  impossible  that  Christianity  can  have  sprung 
from  the  Jesus  which  these  critics  give  us,  as  that  it 
should  have  sprung  up  without  any  Jesus  behind  it  at 
all,  as  the  radicals  assert.  There  is  just  as  little  reason 
in  a sound  historical  criticism  to  discover  the  Jesus  of 
Bousset  behind  the  Jesus  of  the  evangelists,  as  there 
is  for  discovering  with  Kalthoff  that  there  was  no  real 
Jesus  at  all  behind  the  Jesus  of  the  evangelists.  The 
plain  fact  is  that  the  evangelists  give  us  the  primitive 
Jesus,  behind  which  there  is  none  other;  and  the  at- 
tempt to  set  the  Jesus  they  give  us  aside  in  favor  of 
an  assumed  more  primitive  Jesus  can  mean  nothing  but 
the  confounding  of  all  historical  sequences.  The  real 
impulse  for  the  whole  assault  upon  the  trustworthiness 
of  the  portrait  of  Jesus  drawn  in  the  Gospels  lies  not 
in  the  region  of  historical  investigation  but  in  that  of 
dogmatic  prejudice, — or  to  be  more  specific,  of  natu- 
ralistic preconception.  The  moving  spring  of  the  crit- 
ical reconstruction  is  the  determination  to  have  a “ nat- 
ural ” as  over  against  the  “ supernatural  ” Jesus  of  the 
evangelists.  There  must  be  a more  primitive  Jesus 
than  the  evangelists’ — this  is  the  actual  movement  of 
thought — because  their  Jesus  is  already  a supernatural 
Jesus, — “ a miraculous  Son  of  God,  in  whom  men  be- 
lieve, whom  men  elevate  to  a place  by  the  side  of 
God.”^^  The  plain  fact,  however,  is  that  this  super- 
natural Jesus  is  the  only  Jesus  historically  witnessed  to 
us;  the  only  Jesus  historically  discoverable  by  us;  the 
only  Jesus  historically  tolerable.  We  can  rid  ourselves 
of  Him  only  by  doing  violence  to  the  Wjhole  historical 
testimony  and  to  the  whole  historical  development  as 


The  Synoptic  Jesus  Primitive  165 

well.  Not  only  is  there  no  other  Jesus  witnessed  in  the 
documents,  but  no  other  Jesus  can  have  formed  the 
starting  point  of  the  great  movement  which,  springing 
from  Him,  has  conquered  to  itself  the  civilized  world. 

What  must  absorb  our  attention  immediately,  how- 
ever, Is  the  difficulty  that  Is  found  even  on  these  natu- 
ralistic presuppositions  In  eliminating  from  the  portrait 
of  Jesus  drawn  In  the  Gospels  all  supernatural  traits 
and'  all  claims  on  His  own  part  to  a supernatural  per- 
sonality. To  be  successful  here,  there  Is  required  such 
a policy  of  thoroughgoing  rejection  as  Kalthoff’s  and 
W.  B.  Smith’s,  who  sweep  away  the  whole  figure  of 
Jesus  Itself  as  a myth,  or  at  least  as  Wrede’s,  who 
would  have  us  believe  that  Jesus  made  no  claim  to  even 
'^Messianic  dignity,  so  that  the  entire  picture  drawn  of 
His  career  in  our  Gospels  Is  false;  or  else  such  a policy 
of  ignoramus  as  Pflelderer’s  who  declines  to  form 
any  picture  of  the  real  Jesus  at  all.  The  majority  of 
naturalistic  critics  recoil,  however,  from  these  extremes 
with  an  energy  which  seems  to  betray  at  least  a‘  semi- 
consciousness that  there  may  haply  be  found  In  them 
the  reductio  ad  ahsiirdum  of  their  whole  method.  Their 
position  Is  certainly  a hard  one  between  these  extremes 
from  which  they  recoil  and  the  portrait  of  the  evangel- 
ists toward  which  their  recoil  brings  them  back.  In  en- 
X deavoring  to  avoid  conclusions  recognized  by  them  as  In- 
tolerable they  are  compelled  to  give  recognition  to  facts 
as  to  the  claims  of  the  real  Jesus  which  are  fatal  to 
their  whole  elaborately  argued  position. 

They  are  forced,  for  example,  to  allow  that  Jesus 
did  announce  Himself  as  the  Messlah.^^  And  they  are 

i^Bousset,  Jesus,  168,  argues:  “We  have  certain  knowledge  that  the 
belief  existed  from  the  very  beginning  among  the  Christian  commu- 


i66 


The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 


forced  to  admit  that,  in  developing  His  Messianic 
conception,  He  was  wont  to  call  Himself  ‘ the 

Jesus  Certainly  Man.’  “ It  makes  very  enter- 

Claimed  to  be  taining  reading  to  observe  Bousset, 
Messiah  and  for  example,  grudgingly  conceding  the 
Son  of  Man  nervously  endeavoring 

to  save  himself  from  the  consequences  of  the 
damaging  acknowledgment.  He  cannot  deny  that 
this  title  “ represents  a perfectly  definite  concep- 
tion of  the  Messiah,”  a conception  which  sees  in  the 
IMessiah  a supernatural  figure  who  comes  down  from 
heaven  for  a mission,  and  who  is  clothed  with  no 
less  a function  than  that  of  the  Judge  of  the  world: 
and  he  cannot  deny  that  Jesus  represents  Himself  as 


nity  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah,  and,  arguing  backwards,  we  can 
assert  that  the  rise  of  such  a belief  would  be  absolutely  Inexplicable  if 
Jesus  had  not  declared  to  His  disciples  in  His  life-time  that  He  was 
Messiah.”  It  is  consequently  “ now  definitely  assured,  in  spite  of  con- 
tinual discussions  In  which  It  Is  still  frequently  disputed,”  “ that  Jesus 
considered  Himself  to  be  the  Messiah  of  His  people”  (107).  Cf.  Volk- 
mar  Fritzsche,  Das  Berufsbenjousstsein  Jesu,  13,  and  Schwartzkopff 
there  quoted.  For  a frhis  of  the  literature  In  which  it  is  altogether 
denied  that  Jesus  claimed  to  be  the  Messiah,  see  Holtzmann  N.  T. 
Theologie,  I.  280,  note.  Of  course  it  is  not  disputable  that  it  was  a 
“ self-evident  assumption  ” on  the  part  of  the  Synoptists  that  He  was 
the  Messiah  (Bousset,  167)  : for  the  later  community — the  community 
which  gave  birth  to  the  evangelical  narratives — says  Bousset  (171), 
“ the  Messiahship  of  Jesus  was  the  surest,  most  self-evident,  and  most 
precious  thing  about  Him.”  Cf.  Dalman,  Words,  306. 

Professor  N.  Schmidt  may  be  taken  as  the  type  of  those  extremists 
who  find  it  more  convenient  just  to  deny  that  Jesus  used  this  title  of 
Himself  at  all:  “Jesus  never  used  this  title  concerning  Himself  either 
to  claim  Messiahship  in  any  sense,  or  to  hint  that  He  was  ‘ a mere 
man  * or  ‘ the  true  man  ’ ; but  in  some  pregnant  utterances  used  it  in 
reference  to  man  in  general,  his  duties,  rights  and  privileges”  {The 
Trophet  of  Nazareth,  p.  vli.).  Mt  8^0  according  to  him  means  that  the 
life  of  man  is  “ full  of  danger  and  uncertainty,”  whereas  a beast  is 
“not  deprived  of  his  home  and  hearth  by  his  convictions”  (p.  in)  ! 


\The  Synoptic  Jesus  Pri m i live  167 

‘ the  Son  of  Man.’  But  he  wishes  us  to  believe  that 
Jesus  did  this  only  under  great  pressure,  as  the  close 
of  His  life  drew  near  and  evil  fate  closed  about  Him, 
— seizing  and  clinging  to  the  Danielic  prophecy  to  com- 
fort Himself  in  the  face  of  the  fast-coming  disaster. 
And  He  assures  us  that  Jesus  did  not  adopt  the  title 
even  then  in  its  full  content  “ including  the  idea  of 
preexistence  and  His  own  judgeship  of  the  world.” 

“ To  Him,”  he  tells  us,  “ the  idea  of  the  Son  of  Man 
meant  only  one  thing, — His  return  in  glory.”^®  “ He 
did  not  thereby  place  Himself  on  a level  with  God. 
Above  all.  He  did  not  lay  claim  to  the  judgeship  of  ^ 
the  world,  although  that  conception  was,  strictly  speak- 
ing, included  in  that  of  the  Son  of  Man.”  “ It  is  true,” 
^he  adds,  “ in  the  narrative  of  our  Gospels,  the  opposite 
V seems  to  be  the  case.  But  it  is  inconceivable  . . . 

that  Jesus  . . . should  have  arrogated  to  Himself 

the  judgeship  of  the  world  in  place  of  God.  This  is 
-an  instance  of  the  faith  of  the  community  working  upon 
^ the  tradition.  ...  As  the  tradition  was  handed 
down  by  the  community,  Jesus  was  gradually  removed 
from  the  position  of  a simple  witness  for  His  followers 
before  God’s  tribunal  to  that  of  the  actual  judgeship 
of  the  world.’’^’^  That  is  to  say,  in  brief,  Bousset  does 
S,  not  like  the  consequences  of  allowing  that  Jesus  applied 
V'"  to  Himself  the  title  of  ‘ Son  of  Man,’  and,  finding 
Himself  unable  nevertheless  to  deny  that  He  did  apply 

Jesus,  p.  194.  Cf.  among  naturalistic  writers  who  admit  that  Jesus 
used  the  title  ‘ Son  of  Man  ’ in  connection  with  promises  of  returning 
in  glory:  Weisse,  Evang.  Geschichte  i.  593  seq.:  Keim,  Jesus  of  Naz., 
III.  85-87;  Wittichen,  Idee  des  Reiches  Gottes,  166-172;  Vernes,  Idees 
Mess.,  229-233,  and  note  on  243;  Schenkel,  Character  of  Jesus,  145; 
Zeller,  Strauss  und  Renan,  88-91.  These  are  brought  together  by  Stan- 
ton, p.  249,  note  I. 

P.  203-5. 


1 68  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

this  title  to  Himself,  contents  himself  simply  with  deny- 
ing the  consequences, — Jesus  could  not  have  meant  it. 
Those  who  prefer  to  determine  historical  facts  by  the 
testimony  of  credible  witnesses,  rather  than  by  the  wit- 
ness of  Bousset’s  consciousness  as  to  what  were  fitting, 
will  probably  think  otherwise.^® 

Similarly  it  cannot  be  even  plausibly  denied  that 
Jesus  spoke  the  remarkable  words  attributed  to  Him 
Jesus  Certainly  in  which  He  acknowledges  His  ig- 
Claimed  to  be  norance  of  the  time  of  His  promised 

Superangelic  second  coming.  The  critics  are  indeed 
in  a great  quandary  as  to  this  passage.  It  is  not  the 
kind  of  a passage  they  can  assume  the  evangelists 
to  have  invented.  On  their  fundamental  canon  that 
statements  which  are,  or  seem  to  be,  in  conflict  with  the 
evangelists’  hero-worship  of  Jesus,  bear  the  inerad- 
icable stamp  of  genuineness,  they  are  bound  to  attribute 
these  words  of  Jesus.  For  was  not  Jesus  to  the  evangel- 
ists the  omniscient  Son  of  God?  And  how  could  they 
put  on  His  lips  a confession  of  ignorance  of  so  simple 
a matter  as  the  time  of  His  return?  In  point  of  fact, 
accordingly,  this  passage  is  found  among  the  nine  “ ab- 
solutely credible  ” passages  which  Schmiedel  declares 
“ the  foundation  pillars  for  a truly  scientific  life  of 
Jesus,”^®  and  is  pronounced  by  him  to  have  been  “ most 

i®Cf.  Shailer  Mathews,  The  Messianic  Hope  in  the  N,  T.,  p.  103: 
“The  phrase  is  represented  as  being  used  by  Jesus  to  refer  to  Himself 
as  Judge  (Mk  8^®  14®^).  To  argue  that  these  passages  are  Christian 
comments  added  to  the  words  of  Jesus  is  certainly  to  base  conclusions 
on  no  clear  evidence.”  Nor  is  it  easy  to  be  rid  of  Jesus’  claim  to  be 
judge  of  the  world;  says  Dalman  {Words,  314),  justly:  “The  right 
to  judge  the  world  was  assumed  by  Jesus  when  He  forgave  sins,” — and 
the  assertion  of  a function  of  forgiveness  by  Jesus  is  pervasive. 

Encyc.  Biblica,  1881;  ibid.,  1888,  cf.  1872  and  Dr.  E.  A.  Abbott, 
1773.  Shailer  Mathews  {Messianic  Hope  in  the  N.  T.)  on  the  other 


The  Synoptic  Jesus  Primitive  169 

certainly  ” spoken  by  Jesus.  Yet  in  this  passage  Jesus  j 
proclaims  Himself  a being  superior  to  angels,  sepa- 
rated, that  Is,  from  the  entire  category  of  creaturely 
existences,  and  assimilated  to  the  divine:  “No  one, 
not  even  the  angels  In  heaven,  nor  yet  the  Son,  but 
God  only.” 

And  If  It  must  be  allowed  that  the  “ real  Jesus  ” 
currently  called  Himself  ‘ the  Son  of  Man,’  no  doubt 
with  full  consciousness  of  Its  Impllca- 
And  God  tions,  and  asserted  for  Himself  super- 
angelic  dignity.  It  would  seem  mere 
hypercrItIcIsm  which  would  deny  to  Him  the  great  as- 
sertion of  Intercommunion  with  the  Father  made  In 
Mt  Lk  10“^.  On  the  general  critical  canon  that 
sayings  reported  by  both  Matthew  and  Luke  “ are  to 
be  used  with  confidence  as  representing  the  thought  of 
Jesus,”^®  this  passage  must  be  accepted  as  an  authorita- 
tive utterance  of  HIs.^^  But,  In  that  case,  the  “ realj 
Jesus  ” must  be  credited  with  conceiving  His  relation 
to  the  Father  less  as  that  of  a servant  than  as  that  of 
a fellow : as  the  ‘ Son  ’ He  moves  In  the  sphere  of  the 
divine  life.  And,  this  once  allowed,  what  reason  re- 
hand, thinks  that  “ it  must  be  admitted  that  this  verse  sounds  much  like 
a gloss  or  editorial  comment”;  and  Dalman  {Words),  p.  194,  that 
“the  ending,  ‘nor  the  Son,  but  the  Father  only,’  should  be  regarded  as 
an  accretion.”  Of  course  writers  like  Martineau  {Seat  of  Authority  in 
Religion,  590),  and  N.  Schmidt  {The  Prophet  of  Nazareth,  147,  231) 
take  fright  at  the  language,  which  seems  to  them  redolent  of  a later 
time;  and  thereby  bear  their  unwilling  witness  to  the  implications  of 
the  passage.  In  refutation  of  Dalman  see  Sanday,  Hastings’  B.  D.,  IV. 
573,  whose  general  remarks  are  quite  convincing. 

20  Cf.  Shailer  Mathews,  p.  58.  This  is  but  to  say — with  the  whole 
body  of  critics — that  passages  found  in  both  Matthew  and  Luke  belong 
to  what  Weiss  calls  “ the  Apostolic  source,”  which  contains  the  oldest 
(and  most  trustworthy)  record  of  words  of  Jesus. 

21 A strong  defense  of  the  genuineness  of  the  passage  is  made  by 


170  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

mains  for  denying  to  Him  the  culminating  expression 
of  His  divine  self-consciousness,  the  sublime  utterance 
In  which  He  gives  the  Son  a share  In  the  Divine  Name 
itself  (Mt  28^^)  ? Of  course  It  is  denied  to  Him  by 
the  critics  of  the  school  we  have  been  considering.  But 
the  denial  Is  In  the  circumstances  purely  arbitrary  and 
creates  a situation  which  leaves  an  Important  historical 
sequence  unaccounted  for.  It  Is  undeniable,  for  ex- 
ample, that  the  trinitarian  mode  of  speech  here  illus- 
trated was  current  In  the  Church  from  Its  earliest  origin : 
It  already  appears  In  Paul’s  Epistles,  for  example, — 
especially,  as  a familiar  and  well-understood  form  of 
speech.  In  2 Cor  13^^,  which  was  written  not  more  than 
twenty-five  years  after  our  Lord’s  death  and  antedates 
all  our  Gospels.  This  current  form  of  speech  among 
Christians  of  the  first  age  finds  Its  complete  account  If 
the  usage  were  rooted  In  utterances  of  our  Lord,  but 
it  hangs  Inexplicably  In  the  air  without  some  such  sup- 
position. The  occurrence  of  the  passage  In  Mt  28^® 
In  the  records  of  our  Lord’s  teaching  Is  thus  too  closely 

Volkmar  Fritzsche,  Das  Berufsbe^vusi.  Jesu,  pp.  32  seq.  Harnack  {Das 
Wesen  des  Christentums,  p.  81)  pronounces  it  authentic,  and  treats  it 
as  the  most  important  and  characteristic  of  the  words  of  Jesus.  Even 
Schmiedel  does  not  venture  to  reject  it:  he  only,  by  appealing  to  the 
“ Western  ” text,  attempts  to  reduce  its  meaning.  The  Abbe  Loisy, 
however,  {I’Evangile  et  VEglise,  45;  Autour  tin  petit  Lwre,  130),  casts 
it  out;  but  on  the  express  ground  that  the  declaration  is  too  high  an 
one  for  Jesus  to  have  made;  which  is  at  least  an  admission  that  the 
words  involve  a claim  to  ontological  Sonship.  Prof.  N.  Schmidt,  The 
Prophet  of  Nazareth,  p.  152,  considers  “such  an  utterance  out  of  har- 
mony with  the  admittedly  genuine  sayings  of  Jesus,”  and  even  “ to 
cast  an  undeserved  reflection  upon  His  character.”  For  “how  can  the 
gentle  Teacher  ...  be  supposed  to  have  imagined  Himself  pos- 
sessed of  all  knowledge  and  regarded  all  other  men  as  ignorant  of 
God?”  Certainly  this  is  an  unanswerable  query  if  Jesus  is  to  be  con- 
ceived as  thinking  of  Himself  only  as  a man  among  other  men:  the 


The  Synoptic  Jesus  Primitive  1 7 1 

linked  to  a historical  situation  to  permit  its  displace- 
ment on  the  purely  subjective  grounds  on  which  alone 
its  genuineness  can  be  assailed.^^ 

It  would  seem  to  be  reasonably  clear,  therefore,  that 
the  attem.pt  to  penetrate  behind  the  Synoptic  tradition 
The  Synoptic  with  a view  to  discovering  a “ real 
Jesus  the  Real  Jesus,”  differing  from  the  Synoptic 

Jesus  Jesus  as  the  natural  differs  from  the 
supernatural,  has  failed.  The  purely  subjective  grounds 
on  which  such  an  attempt  mu^  proceed  in  order  to 
reach  its  goal,  lays  it  open  to  the  exaggeration  which 
would  eliminate  the  figure  of  Jesus  from  history  alto- 
gether. From  this  exaggeration,  it  can  save  itself  only 
by  imposing  arbitrary  limitations  upon  the  applica- 

saying  is,  however,  in  point  of  fact,  an  express  claim  to  be  something 
very  different  from  this.  “ The  occurrence  of  this  verse  in  both  Mat- 
thew and  Luke,”  says  W.  C.  Allen,  in  loc.,  “ even  if  the  two  Evangel- 
ists borrow  from  a single  source,  proves  that  this  saying  reaches  back 
to  an  early  stage  of  the  Gospel  tradition.  If,  as  is  probable,  the  two 
writers  drew  from  different  sources,  this  tradition  was  wide-spread. 
If  we  add  the  fact  that  a similar  use  of  the  Son-the  Father  occurs  in 
Mk  13^“,  this  usage  as  a traditional  saying  of  Christ  is  as  strongly 
supported  as  any  saying  in  the  Gospels.”  Cf.  Plummer  on  Luke’s  re- 
port of  the  saying,  quoted  above  (p.  119). 

22  Schmiedel,  Encyc.  Bib.,  1876,  gives  a summary  of  the  reasons  relied 
on  to  exclude  the  passage.  The  history  of  its  criticism  is  briefly  sketched 
by  Holtzmann,  N.  T.  Theologie,  ed.  i,  I.  378-379,  note.  F.  C.  Cony- 
beare  alone  has  sought  to  put  a documentary  basis  under  the  rejection; 
see  esp.  his  articles  in  Preuschen’s  Zeitschrift  fiir  N.  T.  Wissenschaft, 
etc.,  1901,  Heft  4,  pp.  175-78,  and  Hilbert  Journal,  I.  I.  The  findings 
of  Conybeare  have  been  taken  up  and  repeated  with  extraordinary 
avidity  by  nearly  the  whole  critical  school.  Only  Harnack  holds  back: 
“ No  positive  proofs  can  be  adduced  for  regarding  28^®  as  an  inter- 
polation ” {Expansion  of  Christianity,  E.  T.,  I.  44-45,  note).  E.  Rig- 
genbach  has  sufficiently  answered  Conybeare — who  indeed  required  no 
answer — (Schlatter  and  Cremer’s  Beitrdge  zur  For  derung  christlicher 
Theologie,  1903.  vii. ; also  1906,  x.).;  Men  like  Harnack,  while  vin- 
dicating the  genuineness  of  the  passage  in  Matthew,  and  supposing  it 


172  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

tion  of  its  subjective  principle,  which  render  It  nuga- 
tory for  the  end  for  which  It  is  Invoked.  In  any  event 
no  reasonable  grounds  can  be  assigned  for  discarding 
the  portrait  of  Jesus  drawn  by  the  Synoptlsts,  or  for 
depriving  Him  of  the  great  sayings  by  which  He  Is 
represented  by  them  as  testifying  to  His  essential  deity. 
It  is  Impossible  to  deny  on  any  reasonable  grounds  that 
Jesus  called  Himself  the  ‘ Son  of  Man  ’ by  predilec- 
tion, and  It  Is  purely  arbitrary  to  suppose  that  in  doing 
so  He  did  not  mean  what  the  term  Implies.  It  Is 
equally  Impossible  to  deny  that  He  represented  Him- 
self under  the  denomination  of  ‘ Son  ’ as  of  super- 
angelic  dignity,  and  as  standing  in  a relation  of  Inti- 
mate continuous  Intercourse  with  God  the  Father.  This 
prepares  the  way  for  allowing  farther  that  He  repre- 
sented Himself  as  sharer  with  the  Father  In  the  divine 
Name  Itself,  and  makes  nugatory  all  subjective  objec- 
tion to  It.  The  strictest  scrutiny  of  the  Synoptic  record 
of  Jesus’  teaching.  In  other  words,  renders  an  appeal 
from  their  representation  to  Jesus’  own  teaching  mean- 
ingless. It.  Is  not  only  the  Synoptists  who  testify  that 
Jesus  Is  a divine  person,  but  the  Jesus  they  report: 
it  Is  not  only  the  Jesus  as  reported  by  them  who  bears 
this  witness  to  Himself,  but  the  only  Jesus  of  history. 

pre-Pauline  in  origin  (o/>.  cit.  p.  iii),  yet  deny  it  to  Jesus.  For  rea- 
sons why  it  must  be  vindicated  to  Jesus  see  Hort.  on  i P Sanday 

Criticism  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  218,  219;  Hastings’  B.  D.,  ii.  213-14, 
573>  574  i P*  Chase,  The  Lord’s  Command  to  Baptize,  in  the 
Journal  of  Theological  Studies,  July,  1905.  Cf.  also  Bruce,  The  King- 
dom of  God,  1889,  p.  258:  “With  reference  to  the  trinity  of  the  Bap- 
tismal formula,  it  is  to  be  observed  that  it  simply  sums  up  in  brief 
compass  the  teaching  of  Jesus”;  and  especially  Zahn  on  Mt  28i®-20 
(p.  711,  note  7):  “The  text  of  verses  18-20  is  transmitted  with  cer- 
tainty in  all  essential  elements.  With  reference  to  the  almost  stereo- 
typed abbreviation  which  recurs  in  Eusebius  (for  example  Demonstr. 


The  Synoptic  Jesus  Primitive  173 

On  the  basis  of  the  Synoptic  record,  In  other  words,  we 
can  be  fully  assured  that  Jesus  not  only  was  believed 
to  have  taught  that  He  was  a divine  person,  but  actu-l 
ally  did  so  teach.^® 

E^'ang.,  III.  6,  32,  Tropeudivreg  fiaOr^TeOffars  Tzdvra  rd  edvrj  iv  tw 
Svofxari  fioo^  diddffxovTe^  xrA.),  in  which  Conybeare,  Ztschr.  fiir 
N.  T.  fViss,  1901,  p.  175  seg.  supposes  that  he  has  discovered  the  origi- 
nal text,  cf.  E.  Riggenbach,  Der  Trinit.  Tanfbefehl,  1903  (Schlatter- 
Cremer,  Beitr.  VII.  i),  by  whom  the  matter  is  set  at  rest  (erledigt). 
From  Eus.  Epist.  ad  Casar.  (Socr.  I.  8)  ; c.  Marc.  I.  i;  Hist.  Eccl., 
III.  5,  and  other  passages,  it  may  be  seen  that  Eusebius  recognized  the 
received  text  as  that  which  had  been  transmitted  to  him  too,  and  as 
that  which  alone  could  be  employed  in  dogmatic  discussion.” 

23  Cf.  Stanton,  Jewish  and  Christian  Messiah,  p.  252:  “His  own 
express  language  claimed  the  title  [of  Messiah]  in  a sense  not  one  whit 
less  supernatural  and  glorious  than  that  in  which  it  was  afterwards 
understood.”  So  p.  390:  “I  have  endeavored  to  show  that  Jesus  must 
have  claimed  to  be  the  Christ  in  a sense  involving  His  deity.”  Cf.  pp. 

154,  155- 


THE  DESIGNATIONS  OF  OUR  LORD  IN 
JOHN  AND  THEIR  SIGNIFICANCE 


It  may  certainly  be  said  that,  on  this  showing,  little 
Is  left  by  the  Synoptists  to  John,  in  the  way  of  ascrib- 
Same  Chris-  essential  deity  to  Jesus.  This  is 

tology  in  Syn-  true  enough.  Those  who  are  familiar 
optics  and  John  with  the  recent  literature  of  the  subject 
will  not  need  to  be  told  that  the  contradiction  which 
used  to  be  instituted  between  the  Synoptists  and  John 
in  this  matter  tends  of  late  to  be  abandoned.  Not  only 
does  Dr.  Sanday,  for  example,  speak  of  the  teaching 
of  John  as  only  “ a series  of  variations  upon  the  one 
theme  which  has  Its  classical  expression  ” In  the  cul- 
Xmlnatlng  chrlstological  passage  of  the  Synoptists,^ 
and  remark  that  It  Is  In  Matthew  rather  than  in  John 
that  the  “ only  approach  to  a formulation  of  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity”  occurs  in  the  Gospels;^  but,  as 
wc  have  already  seen,  purely  naturalistic  critics  like 
Bousset  are  emphatic  in  asserting  that  between  the 
Synoptists  and  John,  In  the  matter  of  the  ascription  of 
deity  to  our  Lord,  there  exists  only  a difference  of 
degree,  not  of  klnd.'^  Whatever  else  we  must  say  of 

1 Criticism  of  N.  T.:  Si.  Margaret's  Lectures,  1902,  by  a company 
of  scholars,  p.  17.  Cf.  his  early  work,  The  Authorship  and  Historical 
Character  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  1872,  p.  109,  where  he  speaks  of  Mt 
ii27  as  containing  “the  essence  of  the  Johannine  theology,”  and  as 
leaving  “ nothing  in  the  Johannine  christology  ” which  it  does  not 
cover. 

2 Criticism  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  1905,  pp.  218-19. 

3 JV as  ^issen  njoir  <von  Jesus  f 1904,  p.  54:  cf.  Schmiedel,  Encyclo- 
pedia Biblica,  1872. 


175 


The  Designations  in  John 

Wilhelm  Wrede’s  work  on  the  Gospel  of  Mark,  he  has 
certainly  rendered  it  impossible  hereafter  to  appeal  from 
the  christology  of  John  to  that  of  the  Synoptists.^ 
Those  who  will  not  have  a divine  Christ  must  hence- 
forth seek  their  human  Jesus  outside  the  entire  evan- 
gelical literature.  It  is  not  merely  his  own  individual 
opinion,  then,  which  Professor  Shailer  Mathews  is 
giving  when  he  declares  that  “ generally  speaking,  out- 
side the  references  to  the  early  Messianic  career  of 
Jesus,  the  Fourth  Gospel  contains  nothing  from  Jesus 
that  is  new  ” : and  that,  after  all,  the  differences  be- 
tween the  Synoptists  and  John  are  “ a question  of  de- 
gree rather  than  of  sort  of  treatment.”®  He  might 
have  omitted,  indeed,  the  qualification  with  respect  to 
the  references  to  the  early  Messianic  career  of  Jesus. 
We  have  already  seen  that  to  the  Synoptists  also  Jesus 
was  consciously  the  Messiah  from  the  very  inception 
of  His  work;  or  rather,  in  their  case,  let  us  say,  from 
the  very  beginning  of  His  life.  After  all,  it  is  the 
Synoptists,  not  John,  who  tell  us  of  the  proclamation 
of  the  Messianic  character  of  this  Child  before  His 
birth:  and  it  is  Luke,  not  John,  who  tells  us  that  He 
was  conscious  of  His  unique  relation  to  God  as  in  a 
very  special  sense  His  Father  from  His  earliest  child- 
hood. 

The  Synoptists  and  John  certainly  stand  on  the  same 
level  In  their  estimate  of  the  person  of  Jesus,  and  differ 
In  their  presentation  of  It  only  In  the 
^ Method  relative  emphasis  they  throw  on  this  or 
the  other  aspect  of  it.  In  the  Synoptists 
it  is  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus  which  receives  the  pri- 
mary emphasis,  while  His  proper  deity  is  Introduced 

^ Das  M essias geheitnnis , etc. 

® The  Messianic  Hope  in  the  N.  T.,  p.  6i. 


176  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

incidentally  in  the  course  of  making  clear  the  greatness 
yof  His  Messianic  dignity.  In  John,  on  the  contrary, 
it  is  the  deity  of  our  Lord  which  takes  the  first  place, 
and  His  Messiahship  is  treated  subsidiarily  as  the  ap- 
propriate instrumentality  through  which  this  divine 
Being  works  in  bringing  life  to  the  dead  world.  The 
differences  in  point  of  view  between  them  receive  a 
fair  illustration  in  the  introductions  which  the  evangel- 
ists have  severally  prefixed  to  their  narratives.  Luke 
begins  his  Gospel  with  a short  paragraph  designed  to 
establish  confidence  in  the  trustworthiness  of  his  ac- 
count of  the  life  and  work  of  the  world’s  Redeemer. 
Mark  opens  his  with  a few  words  which  connect  Jesus’ 
career  with  the  subsequent  expansion  of  the  religion 
He  founded.  Matthew’s  commences  with  a reference 
to  the  previous  development  of  the  people  of  God,  and 
presents  the  apparition  of  Jesus  as  the  culminating 
act  of  the  God  of  Israel  in  establishing  His  Kingdom 
in  the  world.  All  these  take  their  starting-point  in 
the  phenomenal,  and  busy  themselves  with  exhibiting 
the  superhuman  majesty  of  this  man  of  God’s  ap- 
pointment, the  Christ  of  God.  John,  on  the  other 
hand,  takes  his  readers  back  at  once  into  the 
noumenal;  and  invites  them  to  observe  how  this 
divine  Being  came  into  the  world  to  save  the  world, 
and  how  His  saving  work  was  wrought  in  the 
capacity  of  the  Messiah  of  Israel.  It  is  in  his  pro- 
logue, therefore,  that  John  sets  forth  the  platform  of 
his  Gospel,  which  is  written  with  the  distinct  purpose 
that  its  readers  may  be  led  to  believe  that  Jesus  is  not 
merely  the  ‘Christ,’  but  the  ‘Son  of  God’  (20^^); 
for,  that  the  term  ‘ Son  of  God  ’ here  has  a metaphys- 


177 


The  Designations  in  John 

ical  significance  Is  scarcely  open  to  question.  In  this 
sense  John’s  Gospel  is  the  Gospel  of  the  deity  of 
Christ;  although  it  Is  clear  that  we  can  call  It  such  In 
contrast  with  the  Synoptlsts  only  relatively,  not  abso- 
lutely. In  a sense  not  so  fully  true  of  them,  however, 
It  was  written  to  manifest  the  deity  of  Christ. 

In  his  prologue,  then,  John  tells  us  with  clear  and 
even  crisp  distinctness  what  In  His  essential  Being  he 
conceives  the  Jesus  to  be  whose  life  and 
teaching  In  the  world  he  Is  to  give  an 
account  of  In  his  Gospel.  And  what  he 
tells  us  Is,  In  one  word,  that  this  Jesus  Is  God.  In  tell- 
ing this  he  makes  use  of  a phraseology  not  only  not 
found  In  the  other  evangelists,  but  absolutely  peculiar 
to  himself.  The  person  of  whom  he  Is  speaking  he 
Identifies  at  the  close  of  the  prologue  (i^^)  by  the 
solemn  compound  name  of  ‘ Jesus  Christ,’  as  Mark 
and  Matthew  also  at  the  opening  of  their  Gospels  had 
made  use  of  the  ^me  great  name  to  Identify  the  sub- 
ject of  their  discourse;  and,  like  them,  John  also  makes 
no  further  use  of  this  full  name  In  his  Gospel  (cf., 
however,  17^).  The  particular  designation  he  applies 
to  this  person  In  order  to  describe  His  essential  nature 
Is  ‘the  Word’  {0X6^0^),  Of  this  ‘Word’  he  de- 
clares that  He  was  In  the  beginning,  that  Is,  that  He 
js  of  eternal  subsistence;  that  He  was  eternally  “with 
God,”  that  Is,  that  He  Is  In  some  high  sense  distinct 
from  God;  and  yet  that  He  was  eternally  Himself 
God,  that  Is,  that  He  Is  In  some  deep  sense  Identical 
with  God  and  nevertheless  that  In  due  time 

He  became  flesh,  that  Is,  that  He  took  upon  Himself 
a human  nature  and  so  came  under  the  observa- 


178  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

tion  of  men  and  was  pointed  out  by  John  the  Baptist 
as  the  ‘ Coming  One,’  that  is,  the  Messiah.  In  further 
elucidation  of  His  essential  nature.  He  is  described  as 
the  ‘only  begotten  from  the  Father’  (i^^)  or  even 
more  poignantly  as  ‘God  only-begotten’ 

'All  this  phraseology  is  unique  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. Nowhere  else  except  Rev  19^^  is  Jesus  Christ 
called  the  ‘Word’  only,  with  the  possible 

exceptions  of  i Jno  i^,  Heb  4^^).  Nowhere  else,  ex- 
cept Jno  I Jno  4®,  is  He  called  the  ‘ Only  Be- 

gotten.’ Yet  the  general  sense  intended  to  be  conveyed 
is  perfectly  clear.  John  wishes  to  declare  Jesus  Christ 
God;  but  not  God  in  such  a sense  that  there  is  no 
other  God  but  He.  Therefore  he  calls  Him  ‘ the 
Word,’ — ‘ the  Word  ’ who  is  indeed  God  but  also 
alongside  of  God,  that  is  to  say,  God  as  Revealer: 
and  he  adds  that  He  is  ‘ God  only  begotten,’  the  idea 
conveyed  by  which  is  not  derivation  of  essence,  but 
uniqueness  of  relation,  so  that  what  is  declared  is  that 
beside  Jesus  Christ  there  is  no  other, — He  is  the  sole 
complete  representation  of  God  on  earth.®  In  harmony 
with  these  designations  he  calls  Him  also  in  this  pro- 
logue the  ‘Light’  ( 1^4, 5], 7,3,9^ — ^ designation  more 
fully  developed  by  our  Lord  Himself  in  His  discourses. 
The  effect  of  the  whole  is  to  emphasize  in  the  strongest 
manner  at  the  inception  of  the  Gospel  the  divine  nature 
of  the  ‘ Jesus  Christ  ’ who  is  to  be  the  subject  of  its 

® Cf.  Westcott  on  j44  (p.  126):  “The  thought  is  centered  in  the 
personal  Being  of  the  Son,  and  not  in  His  generation.  Christ  ie  the 
One  only  Son.”  Meyer  on  (p.  92)  : “ Movoy.  designates  the  Logos 
as  the  only  Son  besides  whom  the  Father  has  none.”  The  same  essen- 
tial sense  is  conveyed  by  the  dyart-qrot;  employed  in  the  Synoptists, 
possibly  of  God’s  witness  to  His  Son  at  His  baptism  and  transfigura- 
tion, and  certainly  in  the  parable  of  Mk  12®,  Lk  2q4®. 


The  Designations  in  John 


179 


narrative:  and  thus  to  set  forth  the  aspect  in  which 
His  life  and  work  are  here  to  be  depicted. 

The  key-note  of  the  Gospel  having  been  thus  set, 
however,  John,  so  soon  as  the  prologue  is  over  and  he 
takes  up  the  narrative  proper,  leaves 
^Name^n^ohT  designations  behind  him  and 

prosecutes  his  narrative,  like  the  other 
evangelists,  by  means  of  the  simple  designation  ‘Jesus.’ 
As  truly  to  John  as  to  the  Synoptlsts,  thus,  the  narra- 
tive name  of  our  Lord  Is  the  simple  ‘ Jesus,’  which 
occurs  nearly  250  times.  It  Is  varied  In  the  narra- 
tive only  by  a very  occasional  use  of  ‘ the  Lord  ’ in 
its  stead  (4^  6^^  ii^  20“^^  No  other  desig- 

nation Is  employed  by  John  himself  outside  the  pro- 
logue, except  In  the  closing  verse  of  the  narrative  proper 
(20^^) , where  he  declares  that  he  has  written  to  the  end 
that  It  might  be  believed  that  ‘ Jesus  ’ — the  ‘ Jesus  ’ of 
whom  he  had  so  currently  spoken — Is  ‘ the  Christ,  the 
Son  of  God.’  It  Is  possible,  no  doubt,  to  take  the 
‘Jesus  Christ’  of  17^  as  a parenthetical  Insertion  from 
his  hand,  and  to  assign  to  him  the  paragraph 
In  which  Jesus  is  spoken  of  as  ‘ the  Son,’  God’s  ‘ only 
begotten  Son,’  ‘ the  only  begotten  Son  of  God.’  But 
these  exceptions,  even  if  they  be  all  allowed,  only 
slightly  break  In  upon  the  habitual  usage  by  which  John 
speaks  of  our  Lord  simply  as  ‘ Jesus,’  varied  occasion- 
ally to  ‘ the  Lord.’  They  would  merely  bear  witness 
to  the  fact  that  the  high  reverence  to  the  person  of 
our  Lord  manifested  In  the  designations  of  the  pro- 
logue continues  to  condition  the  thought  of  the  writer 
throughout,  and  occasionally  manifests  itself  In  the  ap- 
pearance of  similarly  lofty  designations  In  the  narrative. 

As  In  the  other  evangelists,  further,  the  simple 


i8o  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

‘Jesus’  Is  reserved  for  the  narrative  name,  and  is 
placed  on  the  lips  of  no  one  of  the  speak- 
Jesus’  Popular  appear  In  Its  course.  It  Is  made 

clear,  however,  that  it  was  by  this  name 
that  our  Lord  was  known  to  His  contemporaries,  and 
He  Is  accordingly  distinguished  by  those  who  speak  of 
Him  as  “ the  man  that  Is  called  Jesus  ” (9^^),  “ Jesus, 
the  Son  of  Joseph”  (6^“),  “Jesus  of  Nazareth, 
the  Son  of  Joseph”  or  the  simple  “Jesus 

of  Nazareth  ” (18®’'^  19^^)  • In  the  reports  of  remarks 
about  Him  the  simple  demonstrative  pronoun  Indeed 
Is  sometimes  made  to  do  duty  as  the  only  designation 
needed,  occasionally,  possibly,  with  an  accent  of  con- 

, but  ordinarily  merely 

^14,46,  [50,58]  ,^25,26,31,40,41.46 

33  tt37,37,47\  sometImes  He  Is  represented  as 

— 47 


tempt 

designatorily  (l2.30.33.34  326  429.42  ^14,46, [50.58]  ,^25,26,31.40,41.46 


1 1' 


spoken  of  merely  as  “ this  man”  {dvdpconoQ^  9I6.24  ^ 
18^^’“^),  or  Indeed  simply  as  a man  {dvi^p,  only; 


^12  ,y46,[51] 


j-g40  ^11,16,16,24 


10^^] 


II 


47,50 


Formulas  of 
Address 


dvdpoJTroc^y  429 

jgl4.17.29  1^5)^ 

In  the  narrative  of  John  our  Lord  Is  represented  as 
customarily  addressed  by  His  followers,  as  He  Him- 
self Informs  us  (13^^’^^),  as  ‘Teacher’ 
(^diddaxah^)  and  ‘Lord’  (xupcs)^  the 
correlatives  of  which  are  ‘ disciples  ’ 
(pad7]Tai  passim)  and  ‘ servants,’  that  Is  ‘ slaves  ’ {douXoe^ 
J3I6  j^i5,2oj^  actual  formula  ‘Teacher,’  how- 

ever, occurs  very  rarely  (i^^  In  ii^®  It  Is  an  ap- 
pellative, Implying  Its  use  In  address;  cf.  3^  13^^’^^)? 
although  Its  place  Is  In  part  supplied  by  the  compara- 
tively frequent  Aramaic  form  ‘ Rabbi  ’ ( 3^  4^^ 
625  ^2  jj8.  John  the  Baptist,  3^®),  varied  on 

one  occasion  to  ‘ Rabboni  ’ (20^®).  The  most  common 


The  Designations  in  John  i8i 

honorific  form  of  address  Is  ‘ Lord  ’ (411.15,19.49  ^7 

^36,38  j j 3,12,21,27,32,34,39  j ^6,9,25,36,37  j^5,8,22 

of  Philip,  12^^).  Of  course,  seeing  that  He  was  cur- 
rently addressed  as  ‘ Teacher,’  ‘ Lord,’  He  could  not 
but  be  spoken  of  by  these  titles,  used  appellatively : 
‘the  Teacher’  (ii^®,  cf.  131^’!^  3^)  rarely,  and  com- 
paratively frequently  ‘the  Lord’  (20^’^®’^®’^^  21'^).  The 
latter  usage  the  evangelist  himself  adopts  In  his  own 
person  (4^  6^®  ii^  20^^  21'^’^®).  It  Is  noteworthy  that 
the  title  ‘ the  Lord  ’ Is  In  this  Gospel  confined  to  Jesus, 
never  occuring  of  God  the  Father  except  In  a very  few 
citations  from  the  Old  Testament  (12^®’®®,  cf.  i^®).  It 
Is  an  odd  circumstance  that  the  appellative  use  of 
‘ Lord  ’ of  Jesus  occurs,  however,  only  after  His  resur- 
rection. We  say  this  Is  an  odd  circumstance,  because 
our  Lord  Is  represented  as  Himself  telling  us  that  It 
was  applied  to  Him  during  His  life  (13^®’^^),  as  In- 
deed it  could  not  fall  to  be  from  the  currency  of  the 
corresponding  formula  of  address  with  respect  to  Him. 
This  circumstance  must  be  set  down,  therefore,  as 
merely  an  accident  of  the  record. 

From  the  substance  of  the  passages  In  which  It  Is 
employed,  we  get  very  little  guidance  to  the  significance 
of  ‘ the  Lord  ’ as  thus  applied  to  Jesus. 

*Lord*  It  Is  only  obvious  that  It  Is  used  with 
reverential  recognition  of  His  author- 
ity. Only  In  the  great  passage  (20®®)  where  Thomas’ 
doubt  breaks  down  at  the  sight  of  his  risen  Master 
and  he  cries  to  Him,  “ My  Lord  and  my  God,”  do 
we  catch  an  unmistakable  suggestion  of  Its  highest 
meaning.  That  this  exclamation  was  addressed  to 
Christ  Is  expressly  stated:  “Thomas  answered  and 
said  to  HimJ*  The  strong  emotion  with  which  It  was 


1 8 2'  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

spoken  is  obvious.  It  is  not  so  clear,  however,  what 
precise  connotation  is  to  be  ascribed  to  the  term  ‘ my 
Lord  ’ in  it.  There  may  be  a climax  in  the  progress 
from  ‘ my  Lord  ’ to  ‘ my  God.’  But  it  seems  impos- 
sible to  doubt  that  in  this  collocation  ‘ Lord  ’ can  fall 
little  short  of  ‘God’  in  significance;  else  the  conjunc- 
tion of  the  two  would  be  incongruous.  Possibly  both 
terms  should  be  taken  as  asserting  deity,  the  former 
with  the  emphasis  upon  the  subjection,  and  the  latter 
with  the  emphasis  on  the  awe,  due  to  deity.  In  any 
event  in  combination  the  two  terms  express  as  strongly 
as  could  be  expressed  the  deity  of  Jesus;  and  the  con- 
joint ascription  is  expressly  accepted  and  commended 
by  Jesus.  It  must  rank,  therefore,  as  an  item  of  self- 
testimony on  our  Lord’s  part  to  His  Godhead."^ 

The  ascription  to  our  Lord  of  prophetic  character 
is,  as  in  the  other  evangelists,  cursorily  noted  (4^^ 
^14  ^40, [52]  ^17^^  jg  ^jgQ  Qyj.  Lord’s 

the ‘Christ*  acceptance  of  the  role  (4^^).  But 

in  John,  too,  it  is  particularly  the  spe- 
cifically Messianic  titles  which  attract  attention.  The 
simple  designation  ‘ the  Christ  ’ is  not,  indeed,  fre- 
quently applied  directly  to  our  Lord,  although  it  is 
made  clear  that  He  announced  Himself  as  ‘ the  Christ,’ 
and  was  accepted  as  such  by  His  followers,  and  therefore 

Cf.  Westcott,  in  loc.:  “ The  words  are  beyond  question  addressed 
to  Christ  {saith  unto  Him),  and  cannot  but  be  understood  as  a con- 
fession of  belief  as  to  His  Person  . . . expressed  in  the  form  of 
an  impassioned  address.  . . . His  sublime  confession,  won  from 

doubt,  closes  historically  the  progress  of  faith  which  St.  John  traces. 
At  first  (ch.  ii)  the  evangelist  declared  his  own  faith:  at  the  end 
he  shows  that  this  faith  was  gained  in  the  actual  intercourse  of  the 
disciples  with  Christ.  . . . The  words  which  follow  show  that  the 

Lord  accepted  the  declaration  of  His  Divinity  as  the  true  expression 
of  faith.” 


The  Designations  in  John  183 

raised  continual  questionings  in  the  minds  of  outsiders 
whether  He  were  indeed  ‘ the  Christ.’  John  the  Bap- 
tist is  represented  as  frankly  confessing  that  he  was  not 
himself  ‘the  Christ,’  but  His  forerunner  ^28^^ 

pointing  not  obscurely  to  Jesus  as  the  Messiah.  And 
accordingly  John’s  disciples  following  their  master’s 
suggestion  find  in  Jesus  ‘ the  Messiah  ’ ( , which  the 
evangelist  interprets  to  us  as  ‘ the  Christ.’  When  the 
woman  of  Samaria  confesses  her  knowledge  that  ‘ Mes- 
siah ’ (who,  adds  the  evangelist  again,  is  called 
‘Christ’)  is  to  come,  our  Lord  majestically  declares 
Himself  to  be  Him  (4^^’^®).  The  speculation  of  the 
people  over  Hi's  Messianic  character  finds  repeated 
mention  (4"*"  726,27.31.41.41,42  ^22  jq24  Jesus  Him- 

self is  represented  as  calling  out  from  Martha  the  full 
confession,  in  which  the  current  Messianic  titles  are 
accumulated  with  unwonted  richness:  “Yea,  Lord:  I 
have  believed  that  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God, 
He  that  cometh  into  the  world”  (ii^^).  And  the 
evangelist  himself,  with  some  similar  repetition  of 
titles,  explains  that  the  purpose  he  had  in  view  in  writ- 
ing his  Gospel  was  that  it  might  be  believed  that  “ Jesus 
is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God”  (20^^),  and  announces 
as  the  full  name  of  the  subject  of  his  narrative,  at  its 
inception  and  possibly  at  one  point  in  its  course  where 
explicit  identification  seemed  to  him  useful,  ‘ Jesus 
Christ’  (i^^,  cf.  17^).  We  must  not  pass  over  this 
list  of  passages  without  noting  that  on  two  occasions 
the  Aramaic  term  ‘ Messiah  ’ occurs  ( 4^^),  the  only 
instances  of  its  occurrence  in  the  New  Testament. 

Nor  should  we  leave  in  noticed  the  somewhat  diffi- 
cult question  whether  ‘ jesu^  Christ’  in  17^  is  intended 
as  a word  of  our  Lord’s  or  is  to  be  understood  as  a 


i86 


The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 


but  throughout  the  whole  use  of  the  name  ‘ Jesus 
Christ  ’ in  the  Apostolic  Church  retains  its  force.  In 
this  passage  we  have  only  the  earliest  instance  of  the 
combination  of  the  two  names  ‘ Jesus,’  as  the  personal, 
and  ‘ Christ,’  as  the  official  designation,  into  one  quasi- 
proper name:  and  the  solemn  employment  of  it  thus 
by  Jesus  gives  us  the  point  of  departure  for  its  Apos- 
tolic use  from  Pentecost  on  (Acts  2^®  3®  4^^  etc.) 
whenever  great  solemnity  demanded  the  employment 
of  this  ceremonious  name.  This  fixed  Apostolic 
usage  from  the  first  days  of  the  infant  Church  finds 
its  best  explanation  in  such  a solemn  employment 
of  it  by  our  Lord  as  we  have  here  recorded  for  us  by 
John.® 

We  ought  not  to  pass  finally  from  this  passage  with- 
out fairly  facing  the  apparent  contrast  which  is  drawn 
in  it  between  Jesus  Christ  as  the  Sent 
of  God  and  the  God  who  sent  Him, 
described  here  as  “ the  only  true  God,” 
that  Is  to  say.  Him  to  whom  alone  belongs  the  reality 
of  the  Idea  of  God.®  From  this  contrast  it  has  often 


SLuthardt  on  the  passage;  also  Godet,  Ebrard,  and  Stier  {Redem 
Jesu,  ed.  3,  1873,  v.  397). 

9 Cf.  Westcott,  in  loc.:  “To  regard  the  juxtaposition  of  Thee,  the 
only  true  God,  and  Him  nuhom  Thou  didst  send,  as  in  any  way  im- 
pairing the  true  divinity  of  Christ,  by  contrast  with  the  Father,  is 
totally  to  misunderstand  the  passage.  It  is  really  so  framed  as  to  meet 
the  two  cardinal  errors  as  to  religious  truth  which  arise  at  all  times, 
the  one  which  finds  expression  in  various  forms  of  polytheism,  and  the 
one  which  treats  that  which  is  preparatory  in  revelation  as  final.  On 
the  one  side  men  make  for  themselves  objects  of  worship  many  and 
imperfect.  On  the  other  side  they  fail  to  recognize  Christ  when  He 
comes.”  Accordingly  the  knowledge  of  God  which  is  life  is  repre- 
sented as  twofold:  “a  knowledge  of  God  in  His  sole,  supreme  Maj- 
esty, and  a knowledge  of  the  revelation  which  He  has  made  in  its  final 
consummation  in  the  mission  of  Christ.”  “ The  contents  of  the  knowl- 


The  Designations  in  John  187 

been  rashly  inferred  that  Jesus  Christ  is  here  by  impli- 
cation affirmed  not  to  be  God;  at  least  not  in  the 
highest  and  truest  sense.  This,  however,  It  Is  obvious, 
would  throw  the  declarations  in  this  Gospel  of  the 
relation  of  Christ  to  the  Father  Into  the  greatest  con- 
fusion. He  who  has  explained  that  He  and  the  Father  ^ 
are  One  (10^^,  cf.  5^^),  and  that  to  have  seen  Him  Is 
to  have  seen  the  Father  (14^  cf.  8^^  10^^  14^) » and 
who  commended  the  confession  of  Him  by  His  fol- 
lower as  “his  Lord  and  his  God”  (20^®),  can  scarcely 
be  supposed  here  so  pointedly  to  deny  Himself  Inci- 
dentally to  be  the  God  He  so  frequently  affirms  Himself 
to  be.  It  Is  quite  clear,  indeed,  that  the  relation  of  our 
Lord  to  the  Father  Is  not  represented  by  John,  whether 
In  his  own  person  or  In  the  words  he  reports  from  the 
lips  of  Jesus,  as  a perfectly  simple  one.  Its  complexity 
Is  already  apparent  In  the  puzzling  opening  words  of 
the  Gospel,  where  the  evangelist  Is  not  content  to  de- 
clare Him  merely  to  have  been  from  eternity  with  God, 
or  merely  to  have  been  from  eternity  God,  but  unites 
the  two  statements  as  If  only  by  their  union  could  the 
whole  truth  be  enunciated.  We  may  legitimately  say 

edge,”  says  Meyer  with  his  usual  point,  “are  stated  with  the  precision 
of  a Confession — a summary  of  faith  in  opposition  to  the  polytheistic 
r.  iiovov  dXy]6.  deov  (cf.  5^^,  Deut  6%  1 Cor  8^,  i Thess  i^),  and  the 
Jewish  the  latter  of  which  rejected  Jesus  as  Messiah,  although 

in  Him  there  was  given,  notwithstanding,  the  very  highest  revelation 
of  the  only  true  God.”  Our  Lord,  in  other  words,  is  not  contrasting 
God  and  Jesus  Christ  ontologically,  but  declaring  that  to  have  eternal 
life  we  must  know  not  only  the  only  true  God — for  there  is  but  one 
true  God;  but  also  the  only  Mediator  between  God  and  man,  Jesus 
Christ — who,  however,  may  Himself  very  well  be,  and  in  the  teaching 
of  our  Lord  is.  Himself  the  true  God.  How  He  can  be  the  true  God 
and  yet  the  sent  of  God  raises  the  deeper  questions  of  the  Trinity  and 
the  Covenant  and  the  Two  Natures  which  are  alluded  to  in  the  text. 


1 88  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

that  this  double  way  of  speaking  of  Christ  confuses 
us;  and  that  we  cannot  fully  understand  it.  We  are 
not  entitled  to  say  that  it  is  the  index  of  confusion  in 
the  mind  of  the  evangelist — or  in  the  mind  of  the 
greater  Speaker  whose  words  the  evangelist  reports, 
— unless  it  is  perfectly  clear  that  there  is  no  conception 
of  the  relation  to  the  Father  of  Him  whom  the  evan- 
gelist calls  by  predilection  the  ‘ Son  of  God,’  even  the 
‘ Only  begotten  Son  ’ or  indeed  ‘ God  only  begotten,’ 
on  the  supposition  of  which  as  lying  in  his  mind  the 
double  mode  of  speaking  of  Him  which  we  find  con- 
fusing may  be  reduced  to  a real  harmony.  'And  it  is 
undeniable  that  on  the  supposition  of  that  conception 
which  has  come  in  the  Church  to  be  called  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity, — especially  as  supplemented  by  those 
other  two  conceptions  known  as  the  doctrines  of  the 
Two  Natures  of  Christ  and  of  the  Eternal  Covenant 
of  Redemption, — as  forming  the  background  of  the 
evangelist’s  varied  modes  of  speaking  of  Christ,  and 
of  our  Lord’s  own  varied  mode  of  speaking  of  Himself 
as  reported  by  John,  all  appearance  of  disharmony  be- 
tween these  declarations  disappears.  To  say  this,  how- 
ever, is  to  say  that  these  great  doctrines  are  taught  by 
John  and  by  our  Lord  as  reported  by  Him:  for  surely 
there  is  no  more  effective  way  of  teaching  doctrines 
(^than  always  to  speak  on  their  presupposition,  and  in 
a manner  which  is  confusing  and  apparently  self-con- 
tradictory except  they  be  presupposed.  Whatever  we 
may  ourselves  find  of  mystery  in  these  doctrines,  it  is 
only  fair  to  recognize  that  they  express  part  of  the 
fundamental  basis  of  the  religious  thought  of  the 
Gospel  of  John  and  of  the  great  Teacher  whose  words 
that  Gospel  so  richly  reports  to  us.^° 


The  Designations  In  John  189 

It  is  only  another  way  of  calling  Jesus  the  ‘ Christ  ’ 
to  call  Him  the  ‘ King  of  Israel.’  This  Nathanael  does 
when  Jesus  manifested  to  him  His  super- 
‘King*  human  knowledge  of  his  heart,  ex- 
claiming: “ Rabbi,  Thou  art  the  Son  of 
God,  Thou  art  the  King  of  Israel”  (i^®) — where  the 
order  of  the  titles  used  is  perhaps  due  to  the  primary 
Impression  being  that  of  the  possession  of  supernatural 
powers,  from  which  the  Messianic  office  Is  inferred. 
It  is  as  ‘ King,’  too,  that  Jesus  was  acclaimed  as  He 
made  His  triumphal  entrance  Into  Jerusalem : “ Ho- 
sanna: Blessed  is  He  that  cometh  In  the  name  of  the 
Lord,  even  the  King  of  Israel”  (i2^^  cf.  6^^) — in 
which  acclamation  the  evangelist  sees  the  fulfillment  of 
the  prophecy  of  Zech  (f  of  the  coming  of  the  King 
of  Zion  riding  on  the  ass  (12^^).  At  His  trial,  again, 
Pilate  demanded  of  Him  whether  He  was  the  ‘ King 
of  the  Jews,’  using  the  natural  heathen  phraseology 
(18^^),  and  received  a reply  which,  while  accepting  the 
ascription,  was  directed  to  undeceive  Pilate  with  respect 
to  the  character  of  His  Kingship  : It  is  not  of  this  world 
(18^^).  In  that  understanding  of  It  (18^'^)  Jesus  has 
no  hesitation  in  claiming  the  title  (18^^).  The  subse- 
quent ascription  of  this  title  to  Him  was  mockery  and 
part  of  His  humiliation  (18^®  j ^3, [121,14, is, 15.19, 21  ^ ^ 
the  same  time  part  of  the  testimony  that  He  lived  and 
died  as  the  Messianic  King. 

We  should  not  pass  finally  away  from  the  passages 
in  which  Jesus  Is  called  ‘ Christ’  and  ‘ King’  without 
noting  somewhat  more  particularly  the 
accumulation  of  Messianic  designations 
In  such  passages  as  20^S  where  the 
evangelist  says  he  has  written  in  order  to  create  faith 


190  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

in  Jesus  as  “ the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,”  and 
where  Nathanael  declares  Him  “ the  Son  of  God,  the 
King  of  Israel,”  and  especially  at  1 where  Martha 
declares  her  faith  in  Him  as  “ the  Christ,  the  Son  of 
God,  Him  that  cometh  into  the  world.”  The  use  of 
the  term  ‘ Son  of  God  ’ in  these  passages  as  a general 
synonym  of  ‘ Christ,’  but  yet  not  necessarily  a synonym 
of  no  higher  suggestion,  we  reserve  for  later  discussion. 
The  designation  ‘ He  that  cometh,’  more  fully  defined 
here  by  the  addition  of  “ Into  the  world,”  we  have  al- 
ready met  with  in  Matthew  (ii^)  and  Luke  (7^^’^®). 
A clause  In  Jno  6^^  “ This  Is  of  a truth  the  prophet 
that  cometh  Into  the  world,”  may  suggest  that  the  epi- 
thet was  associated  in  the  popular  mind  with  the  Mes- 
sianic Interpretation  of  Deuteronomy  and  we 

have  seen  that  our  Lord  associated  It  with  the  great 
passage  In  Isa  In  Itself,  however.  It  appears 

to  conceive  the  Messiah  fundamentally  simply  as  the 
promised  one  (cf.  4“^),  and  to  emphasize  with  refer- 
ence to  Him  chiefly  that  He  Is  to  come  Into  the  world 
upon  a mission.  As  such  It  Is  supported  even  more 
copiously  in  John  than  In  the  other  evangelists  by  a 
pervasive  self-testimony  of  Jesus  laying  stress  on  His 
‘ coming  ’ or  His  ‘ having  been  sent,’  which  keeps  His 
work  sharply  before  us  as  the  performance  of  a task 
which  had  been  committed  to  Him  and  constitutes 
John’s  Gospel  above  all  the  rest  the  Gospel  of  the 
Mission.  ^ In  the  repeated  assertions  made  by  our  Lord 
that  He  “ came  ” Into  the  world,  obviously  with  Im- 
plications of  voluntariness  of  action  (cf. 

Jesus’  T [9]. 11, [15], [27], [30]  ^[19]  .[25,25]  -43  ^14  „[27],[31] 

Mission  ^ 3 4 5 0 7 

939  jqIo  15—  i8^‘),  some  are 

explicit  as  to  the  point  whence  He  came,  which  is  de- 


The  Designations  in  John  19 1 

fined  as  heaven  (3^^’^^),  or  the  Person  from  whom  He 
came,  who  is  named  as  God  ('j^sseq.  gi4-i6,42  j^2s  . 
while  others  declare  plainly  the  object  of  His  coming, 
which  is  not  to  judge  but  to  save  the  world  (12^®’^^). 
The  correlation  of  the  coming  from  the  Father  and 
being  sent  by  the  Father  is  express  in  passages  like 
17^,  and  the  sending  is  most  copiously  testified  to,  some- 
times in  the  use  of  the  simple  verb  TzifiTro)  (4^^  ^23,24,30,37 

^38,39,44  ^16,18,28,33  gl6,18,26,29  ^4  j 14^4  i g21  j ^5 

20“^)  and  sometimes  rather  in  the  use  of  the  more  specific 
dTroarsUco,  which  emphasizes  the  specialness  of  the 
mission,  and  is  most  commonly  cast  in  the  aorist  tense 
with  a reference  to  the  actual  fact  of  the  mission 
538  529,57  g42  jq36  j j42  j ,^3,8,18,21,23,25 ^ ^ thoUgh  SOme- 

times  in  the  perfect  tense  with  a reference  to  the  abid- 
ing effect  of  it  (5^®  20“^)  The  effect  of  this  whole 
body  of  passages  is  to  throw  over  the  whole  of  our 
Lord’s  self-testimony  in  this  Gospel  the  most  intense 
sense  of  His  engagement  upon  a definite  mission,  for 
the  performance  of  which  He,  sent  by  the  Father  in 
A His  love,  has  come  forth  from  God,  or,  more  locally 
expressed,  from  heaven,  into  the  world.  They  supply 
a most  compelling  mass  of  evidence,  therefore,  taken 
in  the  large,  to  His  preexistence,  and  to  His  super- 
human dignity  to  which  His  earthly  career  stands  re- 
! lated  as  a humiliation  to  be  accounted  for  only  by  its 
A being  also  a mission  of  love  (12^®’^^). 

The  fact  of  this  mission  is  also,  no  doubt,  implicated 
in  the  designation  ‘ the  Holy  One  of  God  ’ (6®^) , which 
is  elicited  on  one  occasion  as  a confession  from  His 
followers;  that  is  to  say,  no  doubt,  the  One  whom  the 
Father  has  set  apart  for  a given  work  and  consecrated 
44  See  the  long  and  careful  note  of  Westcott,  John,  p.  298. 


192  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

to  its  performance  (6‘^  10^®).  It  would  also  be  the  im- 
plication of  the  designation  ‘ the  Chosen  One  of  God,’ 
if  that  were  the  correct  reading  in  where  the  Bap- 
tist bears  his  witness  really,  however,  to  His  divine 
Sonship.  Another  designation  given  to  Him  exclu- 
sively by  the  Baptist  throws,  however,  a most  illumi- 
nating light  on  the  nature  of  His  mission.  “ Behold,” 
John  is  reported  as  crying,  as  he  saw  Jesus  coming 
towards  him  after  His  baptism,  “ Be- 
of  God^  Lamb  of  God  which  taketh 

away  the  sin  of  the  world  ” : and  again 
on  the  next  day,  as  he  saw  Him  walking  by,  “ Behold 
vthe  Lamb  of  God”  12  'p^^t  this  was  in  inten- 

tion and  effect  a Messianic  title  is  made  clear  from  the 
sequel.  Disciples  of  John,  following  Jesus  on  this  sug- 
gestion, report  to  their  friends  that  they  have  “ found 
the  Messiah  (which  is  being  interpreted,  Christ)” 
( i^^).  The  source  of  the  phrase  is,  of  course,  the  fifty- 
third  chapter  of  Isaiah,  through  which,  however,  a 
further  reference  is  made  to  the  whole  sacrificial  system, 
culminating  in  the  Passover.  By  it  the  mission  of 
Jesus  is  described  as  including  an  expiatory  sacrifice  of 
Himself  for  the  salvation  of  the  world:  it,  therefore, 
only  gives  point  to  and  explains  the  modus  of  what  is 
more  generally  declared  by  our  Lord  Himself  in  such 

12  Jesus  is  called  diiiv6<$  ‘Lamb,’  Jno  i29,36^  Acts  8^2,  i p jia  only 
in  the  N.  T.  The  reference  is  to  the  suffering  Messiah  of  Is  53.  In 
Rev.  dpvcov  is  used  of  Christ  some  29  times:  and  though  the  term  has 
changed,  the  ‘ Lamb  ’ is  the  same — the  Lamb  that  had  been  slain  and 
in  whose  blood  is  salvation.  The  dpviov  is  always  thus  the  slain 
lamb.  Neither  dp.v6<s  nor  dpviov  occurs  in  N.  T.  of  anyone  else 
but  Christ — except  that  the  plural  of  dpvtov  occurs  in  Jno  21^^  of 
Christ’s  followers.  In  Lk  lo^  dpy^v  is  used.  On  the  use  of  the  dimin- 
utive dp\)io\)  of  Jesus  in  Scripture,  see  A.  B.  Grosart,  Expository 
Times,  m.  57. 


The  Designations  in  John  193 

a passage  as  12^^:  “I  came  ...  to  save  the 
world.”  The  Messianic  character  of  this  saving  work 
is  thrown  up  in  a clear  light  by  the  confession  of  the 
Samaritans  who,  having  been  invited  to  come  and  see 
whether  Jesus  were  not  the  ‘ Christ’  (4^^),  when  they 
heard  Jesus  concluded  for  themselves  that  He  was  “ in- 
deed the  Saviour  of  the  world”  (4^“). 

Quite  a series  of  designations,  mostly  figurative  in 
character,  expressive  of  the  same  general  conception,  are 
applied  by  our  Lord  to  Himself.  Thus 

DesfgnatioL  Himself  the  ‘ Light  of  the 

world  ’ ( 9^  1 cf.  319.20,21  j j9,io^  ^ 

which  is  explained  as  the  “light  of  life”  (8^^),  even 
as  the  evangelist  himself  had  with  the  same  reference 
to  “life”  called  Him  ‘the  Light  of  Men’  ( 7,8,9^  ^ 
^The  ultimate  source  of  this  designation  is  no  doubt  to  be 
V found  in  such  passages  in  the  Old  Testament  as  Is  9^’^ 
which  is  quoted  and  applied  to  Jesus  by  both  Matthew 
(4^®)  and  Luke  (2^^).  Similarly  He  calls  Himself 
the  Door  ’ by  entering  through  which  alone  can  sal- 
vation be  had  (10^’^);  the  ‘Bread  of  God’  or  ‘of 
Life,’  by  eating  which  alone  can  life  be  obtained  (6^^; 
y ^35,41,49  y4i^  . < Good  Shepherd  ’ who  gives  His  life 
for  the  sheep  cf.  ; and  without  figure 

definitely  ‘ the  Resurrection  and  the  Life,’  believing 
in  whom  the  dead  shall  live  and  the  living  never  die 
Perhaps  to  the  same  general  circle  of  ideas 
belongs  the  title  ‘Paraclete’  (14^®)  or  ‘Advocate,’^® 
which  seems  to  imply  that  our  Lord  conceives  Himself 
under  this  designation  as  coming  to  the  help  of  the 

Bousset,  Die  Religion  des  Judeniums,  p.  215,  connects  the  Paraclete 
with  “ Menachem  ” employed  in  the  later  Judaism  as  a Messianic  title. 
That  would  imply  that  we  should  take  ‘Paraclete’  in  the  sense  of 
‘ Comforter.’ 


194  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

needy.  And  we  should  probably  think  of  the  designa- 
tion ‘Bridegroom’  (3^^)  in  the  same  light:  but  in 
this  Gospel  our  Lord’s  application  to  Himself  of  this 
designation  with  a reference  to  His  death,  familiar  to 
us  from  the  Synoptics,  is  not  recorded:  there  is  only 
an  employment  of  it  of  our  Lord  by  the  Baptist  with 
no  reference  to  the  days  to  come  when  the  ‘ Bride- 
groom ’ should  be  taken  away. 

In  this  Gospel,  however,  as  in  the  Synoptists,  the 
title  ‘ Son  of  Man  ’ comes  forward  as  one  of  our  Lord’s 
favorite  self-designations;  and  it  is 
‘Son  of  Man’  charged  here,  too,  with  the  implication 
■ ^’^"-^of  a mission,  involving  suffering  and 
death  but  issuing  in  triumph.  If  we  seek  the  guidance 
here,  as  we  did  in  the  case  of  the  Synoptist  use  of  the 
title,  of  the  substance  of  the  passages  in  which  it  occurs, 
we  shall  learn  that  the  ‘ Son  of  Man  ’ is  no  earthly 
being.  He  came  down  from  heaven  whither  He  shall 
ultimately  return  (6®“).  His  sojourn  on  earth  is  due 
to  a task  which  He  has  undertaken,  and  to  which  He 
is  “sealed”  (6“'^).  This  task  is  to  give  eternal  life 
to  men  (6“'^)  ; and  He  accomplishes  this  by  giving 
them  His  flesh  to  eat  and  His  blood  to  drink,  whence 
they  obtain  life  in  themselves  (6^^,  cf.  6“‘).  Of  course 
this  is  symbolical  language  for  dying  for  men.  Accord- 
ingly our  Lord  declares  that  it  is  necessary  that  the 
‘ Son  of  Man  ’ be  “ lifted  up,”  that  whosoever  believes 
in  Him  may  have  eternal  life  (3^^),  and  He  announces 
it  as  His  precise  mission,  received  of  the  Father,  to  be 
thus  “lifted  up”  (8“®  12^^).  Nevertheless,  it  is  only 
that  He  may  enter  His  glory  that  He  dies  (12^^  13^^)  > 
and  it  is  given  to  Him  to  exercise  judgment  also  (5^^)* 
Here  there  is  open  proclamation  of  His  preexistence, 


The  Designations  in  John  195 

of  His  humiliation  for  an  end,  and  of  His  passage 
through  this  humiliation  to  His  primitive  glory. 

The  culminating  Messianic  designation  In  John, 
however,  Is  ‘ the  Son  of  God,’  which  comes  fully  to  Its 
— rights  in  this  Gospel.  This  designation 
‘ Son  of  God  ’ occurs  not  only,  as  in  the  other  evangel- 
ists, In  the  more  technical  form  of  ‘ the 
Son  of  God’  5^^  9^^  10^®  19'^  20^^),  and 

the  simple  absolute  ‘ the  Son  ’ 35.36, 36  ^19,19,20,21,22, 

23,23,26  ^40  g36  j^i3  ^ form  pecullar  to 

John,  ‘the  only  begotten  Son,’  or  simply  ‘the 

only  begotten’  ( cf.  ‘God  only  begotten’). 
That  the  title  ‘ Son  of  God  ’ is  a Messianic  title  Is  clear 
from  such  passages  as  20^\  in  which  It  is  used 

side  by  side  with  ‘ the  Christ,’  ‘ the  King  of  Israel,’  ‘ the 
Coming  One,’  as  their  synonym,  although  not  neces- 
sarily as  a synonym  of  no  higher  connotation.  There 
is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  here,  too,  as  In  the  other 
evangelists,  ‘ Son  of  God  ’ carries  with  it  the  implica- 
tion of  supernatural  origin  and  thus  designates  the 
Messiah  from  a point  of  view  which  recognized  that 
He  was  more  than  man.  What  Is  noteworthy  Is  that 

John  ‘ the  Son  of  God  ’ becomes  very  distinctly  a 
self-designation  of  Jesus’  own  (5“^  9"^  10^®  ii^)  : and 

Dr.  Sanday,  Hastings’  D.  B.,  iv.,  571  b.,  writes:  “We  should  not 
form  an  adequate  conception  of  the  title  ‘ Son  of  God  ’ if  we  should 
confine  ourselves  to  the  use  of  that  title  alone.  It  is  true  that  it  occurs 
in  some  central  passages  [of  the  N.  T.],  and  true  that  in  these  passages 
the  phrase  is  invested  with  great  depth  of  meaning.  But  we  should 
not  adequately  appreciate  this  depth,  and  still  less  should  we  under- 
stand the  mass  and  volume  of  N.  T.  teaching  on  this  head,  if  we  did 
not  directly  connect  with  the  explicit  references  to  the  ‘Son  of  God’ 
that  other  long  series  of  references  to  God  as  preeminently  ‘ the 
Father’  and  to  Christ  as  preeminently  ‘the  Son.’  These  two  lines  of 
usage  are  really  convergent.” 


196  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

it  is  noteworthy  that  in  connection  with  this  designation 
He  claims  for  Himself  not  only  miraculous  powers 
(9S5  but  the  divine  prerogative  of  judgment  (5^^ 
cf.  ; and  that  He  was  understood,  In  employing  it 
of  Himself,  to  “ make  Himself  equal  with  God,”  and 
therefore  to  blaspheme  ( . 

It  Is,  however.  In  the  use  of  the  simple  ‘ the  Son  ’ 
^^17,36, 36  ^19,22  ^40  ^ often  set  In  direct  correlation 

with  ‘the  Father’  (3^^  ^19,20.21.23,23.26 
‘Son’  14^^  17^))  that  the  deepest  suggestion 
of  the  filial  relation  In  which  our  Lord 
felt  Himself  to  stand  to  the  Father  comes  out.  And 
these  passages  must  be  considered  In  conjunction  with 
the  very  numerous  passages  In  which  He  who  never 
speaks  of  God  as  “ our  Father,”  putting  Himself  In 
the  same  category  with  others  who  would  then  share 
with  Him  the  filial  relation,^®  speaks  of  God  either  as 
‘ the  Father,’  or  appropriatingly  as  ‘ My  Father.’ 
There  are  over  eighty  passages  of  the  former  klnd,^® 
and  nearly  thirty  of  the  latter.^"^  The  uniqueness  of 
the  relation  Indicated  Is  brought  out  by  the  connection 
of  the  simple  ‘ the  Son  ’ with  the  emphatically  unique 
‘only  begotten  Son  of  God’  (3^®’^^).  Although,  of 
course,  the  passage  In  which  this  Is  most  pointedly  done 
may  be  the  evangelist’s  and  not  our  Lord’s,  the  phrase 
‘ Only  begotten  Son  ’ or  even  the  term  ‘ Only  begot- 

15  But  in  2oi'^  He  speaks  to  Mary  Magdalene  of  “ My  Father  and 
your  Father,  My  God  and  your  God.” 

16  ^35  ^21,23,23  ^19,20,21,22,23,23,26,36,36,36,37,45  527,37,44,45,46,48,57,57,65 

gl6, 18, 27, 28, 38, 38  iol5, 15, 17, 29, 30,32, 36, 38,38  ij41  J226, 27,28, 49,50  j^6 

j^9,10,10, 11, 12, 13,16,24,26, 28,31, 31  159,10,16,26,26  j 53,10,15,17,23,25,26,27,27,28 

l528,32  171,6,11,21,24,25  igll  2o11>21. 

17  216  517,18,43  532,40  g[19],19,19,49,54  jolS.26,29,37 

551,8,16,23,24  20l^. 


^2,7,20,21,23,28 


The  Designations  in  John  197 

ten  ’ applied  to  Christ,  occurs  nowhere  else,  except  in 
John’s  own  words  i Jno  4^  cf.  Heb  and 

that  affords  a reason  for  assigning  the  paragraph 
to  him.  Such  a passage  as  5^^  however,  makes  per- 
fectly clear  the  high  connotation  which  was  attached  to 
the  constant  claim  of  Jesus  to  be  in  a peculiar  sense 
Cjod’s  ‘ Son,’  entitled  to  speak  of  Him  in  an  appro- 
priating way  as  His  ‘ Father.’  The  Jews  sought  to 
kill  Him,  remarks  the  evangelist,  because  of  this  mode 
of  speech:  “He  called  God  His  own  Father  {naripa 
idcov  ),  making  Himself  equal  (Jaov)  with  God.”-  And 
indeed  He  leaves  no  prerogative  to  the  Father  which 
He  does  not  claim  as  ‘ Son  ’ to  share.  There  has  been 
given  Him  authority  over  all  flesh  (17^),  and  the  des- 
tinies of  men  are  determined  by  Him  (3^^  6^^)  ; He 
quickens  whom  He  will  (5^^)  and  executes  judgment 
on  whom  He  will  (5^^).  Whatever  the  Father  does 
He  knows,  and  indeed  all  that  the  Father  does  He 
does  (5^^).  He  even  has  received  of  the  Father  to 
have  life  in  Himself  (5^®).  Though  He  declares  in- 
deed that  the  Father  is  greater  than  He  (14“^),  this 
must  be  consistent  with  an  essential  oneness  with  the 
Father,  because  He  explicitly  asserts  that  He  and  the 
Father  are  one  (10^®),  that  He  is  in  the  Father  and 
the  Father  in  Him  (10^®),  and  that  to  have  seen  Him 
was  to  have  seen  the  Father  (14^).  It  may  be  that 
some  mysterious  subordination  of  God  the  Son  to  God 
the  Father  is  suggested  in  the  declaration  that  the 
Father  is  greater  than  He  (14^®),  and  many  certainly 
have  so  interpreted  it,  constructing  their  doctrine  of 
God  upon  that  view.  But  it  seems  more  likely  that  our 
Lord  is  speaking  on  this  occasion  of  His  earthly  state 
in  which  He  is  not  only  acting  as  the  Delegate  of  the 


198  J The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

Father  and  hence  as  His  subordinate — the  “sent”  of 
the  Father;  but  also  in  His  dual  nature  as  the  God-man, 
is  of  Himself  in  His  humanity,  of  a lower  grade  of 
being  than  God,  without  derogation  to  His  equality 
with  the  Father  in  His  higher,  truly  divine  nature.  If 
this  be  what  He  means,  there  is  no  contradiction  be- 
tween the  strong  affirmations  of  His  not  merely  equality 
(5^^)  wdth  God,  but  His  oneness  with  Him  ( 10^^),  His 
interpenetration  with  Him  (10^^)  as  sharer  in  all  His 
knowledge  and  deeds  (14^),  and  His  equally  strong 
affirmation  of  His  inferiority  to  Him  (14^^),  illus- 
trated as  it  is  by  numerous  assertions  of  dependence  on 
Him  and  of  an  attitude  of  obedience  to  Him. 

Thus,  so  clear  and  pervasive  is  the  assertion  of  deity 
through  the  medium  of  His  designation  of  Himself  as 
‘ Son  ’ and  the  use  of  this  term  of  Him 
Sonshfp  evangelist,^®  that  the  chief  point 

of  interest  in  the  term  rises  above  this 
assertion  and  concerns  a deeper  matter.  Does  the  Son- 
ship  asserted  belong  to  our  Lord  in  His  earthly  mani- 
festation merely;  or  does  it  set  forth  a relation  existing 
between  Him  as  a preexistent  person  and  God  conceived 
even  in  eternity  as  His  Father?  In  other  words,  is  the 
term  ‘ Son  ’ a term  of  economical  or  of  ontological 
relation?  The  question  is  not  an  easy  one  to  determine. 
But,  on  the  whole,  it  seems  that  it  should  be  answered 
in  the  latter  sense.  The  force  of  a passage  like  3^® 
(cf.  3®^  5^^) — “ God  so  loved  the  world  that  He  gave 
His  only  begotten  Son  ” — seems  to  turn  on  the  intimacy 

Cf.  Sanday,  Hastings’  B.  D.,  IV.  576  b.:  “We  may  say  with  con- 
fidence that  a sonship  such  as  is  described  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  would 
carry  with  it  this  conclusion.  How  could  any  inferior  being  either 
enter  so  perfectly  into  the  mind  of  the  Father,  or  reflect  it  so  perfectly 
to  man?  Of  what  created  beins  could  it  be  said.  ‘He  that  hath  seen 


199 


The  Designations  in  John 

of  the  relation  expressed  by  the  term  “ only  begotten 
Son”  having  been  already  existent  before  the  giving: 
otherwise  how  is  the  greatness  of  the  love  expressed  in 
the  giving  to  be  measured?  Similarly  in  a passage 
like  3^"^  there  seems  an  implication  of  the  Sonship  as 
underlying  the  mission:  He  was  sent  on  this  mission 
because  He  was  Son, — He  did  not  become  Son  by  be- 
ing sent.  In  like  manner  the  remarkable  phrase  “ God 
only  begotten  ” in  Jno  appears  to  be  most  readily 
explained  by  supposing  that  it  was  as  God  that  He  was 
the  unique  Son:  and,  if  so,  it  seems  easiest  to  under- 
stand “ the  glory  of  an  Only  Begotten  of  the  Father,” 
which  men  saw  in  the  incarnate  Christ  (i^^)  as  the 
glory  brought  with  Him  from  heaven.  In  this  case. 
It  is  obvious,  John  goes  far  toward  outlining  the  foun- 
dations of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  for  us:  and  it 
Is  a mistake  not  to  see  in  his  doctrine  of  the  Logos  and 
of  the  Only  Begotten  God  and  of  the  Divine  Son,  the 
elements  of  that  doctrine. 

With  this  high  doctrine  of  the  divine  Sonship  in 
connection  with  Jesus  the  way  is  prepared  for  the  ex- 
press assertion  that  He  is  God.  This, 
‘God*  as  has  already  been  incidentally  pointed 
out,  is  done  in  express  words  in  this  Gos- 
pel. The  evangelist  declares  that  that  ‘Word,’  which, 
on  becoming  flesh,  is  identified  with  ‘ Jesus  Christ,* 
was  in  the  beginning  with  God  and  was  ‘God’  (i^), 
and  calls  Him  in  distinction  from  the  Father,  ‘ God 
only  begotten  ’ And  Thomas,  his  doubts  of  the 

me  hath  seen  the  Father  ’ ? We  need  not  stop  to  pick  out  other  expres- 
sions that  admit  of  no  lower  interpretations,  because  the  evangelist  has 
made  it  clear  by  his  Prologue  what  construction  he  himself  put  upon 
his  own  narrative.” 


200 


The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

resurrection  removed,  greets  Him  with  the  great  cry, 
“ My  Lord  and  my  God”  (20^®)  : and  more  to  the 
point,  our  Lord  Himself,  who  had  elsewhere  declared 
Himself  one  with  God  (10^®),  and  had  asserted  that 
He  and  the  Fadier  interpenetrated  one  anther  (10^®), 
and  that  to  have  seen  Him  was  to  have  seen  the  Father 
( 14®) , expressly  commended  Thomas  for  this  great  con- 
fession and  thereby  bore  His  own  testimony  to  His 
proper  deity  (20^®).  The  deity  of  Jesus  which  in  the 
Synoptists  is  in  every  way  implied  is,  therefore,  in  John 
expressly  asserted,  and  that  in  the  use  of  the  most 
direct  terminology  the  Greek  language  afforded.  To 
this  extent,  it  is  to  be  allowed  that  John’s  Gospel  is  in 
advance  of  the  Synoptists. 

This  advance  is  commonly  represented  as  the  index 
of  the  development  that  had  taken  place  between  the 
time  when  the  Synoptics  were  written 
and  the  much  later  time  when  John  was 
written.  John,  coming  from  a period 
almost  a generation  later  than  the  Synoptics,  it  is  said, 
naturally  reflects  a later  point  of  view.  Of  course 
John’s  Gospel  was  written  thirty  or  thirty-five  years 
after  the  Synoptics.  But  it  is  an  illusion  to  suppose  that 
it  therefore  sets  forth  a later  or  more  developed  point 
of  view  than  that  embedded  in  the  Synoptics.  The 
Synoptics  present  a divine  Christ,  as  we  have  seen,  and 
are  written  out  of  a point  of  view  which  is  simply  sat- 
urated with  reverence  for  Christ  as  divine.  John  is 
written  from  no  higher  point  of  view,  and  records  noth- 
ing from  the  life  of  Jesus  which  more  profoundly  re- 
veals His  consciousness  of  oneness  with  the  Father  than 
the  great  utterance  of  Mt  1 or  which  more  clearly  an- 
nounces the  fundamental  idea  of  what  we  call  the 


201 


The  Designations  in  John 

Trinity  than  the  great  utterance  of  Mt  28^®.  There  is 
^ advance  in  conception  in  John  over  the  Synoptics: 
there  is  only  a difference  in  the  phraseology  employed 
to  express  the  same  conception.  The  Synoptics  present 
Jesus  Christ  as  God;  only  they  do  not  happen  to  say 
‘ God  ’ when  speaking  of  Him : they  say  ‘ Son  of  Man,’ 
' Son  of  God,’  Sharer  in  ‘ the  Name.’  It  did  not,  how- 
ever, require  thirty  years  for  men  who  thoroughly  be- 
lieved Jesus  to  be  divine  to  learn  to  express  it  by  calling 
Him  ‘ God.’  In  a word,  it  is  in  the  mere  accident  of 
literary  expression,  not  in  the  substance  of  doctrine^ 
that  the  Synoptics  and  John  differ  in  their  assertion  of 
the  deity  of  Christ.  Accidents  of  literary  expression 
are  not  products  of  time,  and  differences  in  modes  of 
expression  do  not  ^gue  intervals  of  time. 


THE  DESIGNATIONS  OF  OUR  LORD  IN 
ACTS  AND  THEIR  SIGNIFICANCE 


How  great  an  illusion  it  is  to  look  upon  John  as 
reflecting  a new  phase  of  teaching,  which  had  grown  up 

„ , ^ , only  in  the  course  of  years,  in  speaking 

Value  of  Acts*  . \ , . , r-  i 

Testimony  Jesus  plainly  as  God,  may  be  illus- 
trated by  attending  to  the  designations 
employed  of  our  Lord  in  the  Book  of  Acts  and  in  the 
letters  of  Paul.  ( The  Book  of  Acts  and  the  Epistles 
of  Paul  both  bring  us  testimony  to  how  Jesus  was 
thought  and  spoken  of  in  Christian  circles  at  the  time, 
and  indeed  before  the  time,  when  the  Synoptics  were 
composed.  The  Book  of  Acts  was  not  only  written 
by  the  author  of  one  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels,^  but 
purports  to  record  conversations  and  discourses  by  the 
actors  in  the  great  drama  of  the  founding  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church;  and  indeed  could  not  have  seriously  mis- 
represented them, — seeing  that  it  was  published  in  their 
lifetime, — without  having  been  at  once  corrected.  We 
may  learn  from  it,  therefore,  how  Jesus  was  esteemed 
by  His  first  followers,  including  those  who  had  enjoyed 


^ This  certainly  cannot  admit  of  doubt:  and  it  is  pleasant  to  be  able 
to  record  that  the  evidence  has  been  recognized  as  overwhelming  even 
by  Harnack:  cf.  his  Lukas  der  Arzt  der  Verfasser  des  dritten  E'van- 
geliums  und  der  A postelgeschichte,  1906.  That  Harnack  is  unwilling 
to  accord  to  Luke  his  true  rank  as  an  exact  historian  does  not  lessen 
the  value  of  his  admission  of  his  authorship  of  the  Gospel  (including 
the  infancy  portion)  that  bears  his  name;  and  of  the  Acts,  throughout. 


The  Designations  in  Acts  203 

His  daily  companionship  throughout  His  ministry.  The 
Epistles  of  Paul  are  none  of  them  of  later  date,  and 
many  of  them  are  of  earlier  date,  than  the  Synoptic 
Gospels,  and  bring  us,  therefore,  testimony  to  the  esti- 
mation in  which  Christ  was  held  in  the  Christian  com- 
munity at  about  the  time  when  the  Synoptic  Gospels, 
or  the  sources  on  which  they  depend,  were  written. 
The  conception  of  Jesus  given  expression  alike  in  the 
Synoptics,  in  Acts  and  in  Paul’s  Epistles,  it  cannot  be 
doubted,  was  aboriginal  in  the  Church.^  But  this  con- 
ception is  distinctly  that  expressed  in  its  own  way  in  the 
Gospel  of  John. 

The  narrative  of  Acts  does  not  concern  the  acts  of 
Jesus  during  the  period  of  His  earthly  life,  but  those 
of  the  exalted  Jesus  through  His  serv- 
* Jesus’ in  Acts  ants  the  Apostles  (i^:  “began”).  It 
is  natural,  therefore,  that  the  simple  des- 
ignation ‘ Jesus  ’ should  occur  less  frequently  in  its  pages 
than  in  the  Gospel  narrative;  and  that  even  when  Jesus 
Is  spoken  of,  which  is  of  course  comparatively  infre- 
, quently.  He  should  be  spoken  of  by  a designation  more 
expressive  of  the  relation  existing  between  Him  and  His 
followers,  whose  acts  it  is  proximately  the  business  of 
this  book  to  describe.  Accordingly  in  Acts  the  rever- 
ential ‘ the  Lord  ’ becomes  the  ruling  designation  of 
Jesus,  and  the  simple  ‘ Jesus  ’ takes  a subordinate  place, 
both  as  the  narrative  designation  and  in  the  reports 

2 Harnack,  in  the  Preface  to  the  above-mentioned  work,  says:  “The 
genuine  epistles  of  Paul,  the  writings  of  Luke,  and  Eusebius’  Church 
History  are  the  pillars  for  the  knowledge  of  the  history  of  the  earliest 
Christianity.”  This  is  true  testimony:  and  it  only  remains  to  give  to 
the  testimony  of  these  three  pillar-witnesses  its  real  validity  to  rise  in 
our  conception  of  early  Christianity  far  above  not  only  the  average 
“ critical  ” conception,  but  Harnack’s  own. 


204  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

of  the  remarks  of  our  Lord’s  followers  incorporated 
in  the  narrative.  Nevertheless  it  is  employed  by  Luke 
himself  with  sufficient  frequency  to  show  that  it  sug- 
gested itself  on  all  natural  occasions.  Thus,  for  ex- 
ample, Luke  uses  it  in  the  first  chapter  where  he  is 
himself  narrating  what  Jesus  did  before  His  ascension 
and  elsewhere  currently  in  such  phrases  as 
“preaching  Jesus”  (5^^  8^®  9^^  “proving  that 

Jesus  is  the  Christ”(9^^  18^’^®  28^^),  and  the  like  (42>i3,is 
5^0  yS5  g27  ig25^^  records  it  as  employed  in  a 

natural  way  by  the  two  chief  spokesmen  in  Acts,  Peter 
in  the  earlier  portion  ( T®  2^2’^®  5^^  cf.  4“^’""), 

and  Paul  in  the  later  portion  ([9^’“^]  17^  19^’^^^^, 

as  well  as  occasionally  by  other  actors  in  the  historical 
drama  (418.27,30  ^4o  ^17, [20]  j^[i3].i5  2519),  including 

the  angel  explaining  the  ascension  (i^^)  and  Jesus  Him- 
self revealing  Himself  to  Paul  (9^  26^®). 

The  fuller  form,  ‘Jesus  of  Nazareth’  (10^®),  or 
more  frequently,  ‘Jesus  the  Nazarene  ’ (2““  6^^  22® 
26^)  also  occurs,  not  as  a locution  of 
l^Treth^’  Luke’s  own.  Indeed,  but  upon  the  lips 
of  Peter  (2““  10^®),  and  Paul  (22^  26®), 
and  In  one  case  as  a description  of  Jesus  by  Himself 
(22®) ; and  also  on  the  lips  of  the  Inimical  Jews  de- 
scribing with  some  contempt  the  great  claims  made  by 
His  followers  for  “this  Jesus  the  Nazarene”  (61'*). 
Twice,  Indeed,  the  full  name  ‘ Jesus  Christ  the  Naza- 
rene ’ Is  employed,  as  a solemn  designation  throwing 
up  for  observation  His  entire  personality  in  all  its 
grandeur  (3^4^^). 

From  these  two  last-named  instances  we  may  learn, 
what  otherwise  Is  sufficiently  illustrated,  that  the  full 


The  Designations  in  Acts 


205 


sacred  name  ‘ Jesus  Christ  ’ was  in  easy  use  by  our 
Lord’s  first  followers,  whenever  they 
Chri^t^*  wished  to  speak  of  Him  with  special 
solemnity.  Luke  himself  so  employs  it 
in  his  narrative  (8^^),  and  he  quotes  it  from  Peter 
(288  ^34  and  Paul  (16^®) — in  each  instance  as 

employed  in  circumstances  of  great  ceremoniousness,  in 
demanding  faith  or  in  working  cures  by  this  great  Name. 
It  is  in  similar  conditions  that  the  even  more  complete 
designation  ‘Jesus  Christ  the  Nazarene  ’ (3®  4^^^)  oc- 
curs; and  that  a designation  which  occurs  very  fre- 
quently in  the  Epistles,  ‘the  Lord  Jesus  Christ’  (ii^^ 
28^^)  or  ‘ our  Lord  Jesus  Chrijt  ’ (15^®  20=^^),  appears 
as  in  use  by  the  Apostles, — Peter  Paul  (20“^), 

and  the  whole  Apostolic  body  (15^^)? — well  as  by 
Luke  himself  (28^^).  In  all  these  instances  it  seems 
clear  that  the  compound  name  ‘ Jesus  Christ  ’ is  treated 
as  a proper  name,  but  of  course  not  with  any  loss  of  the 
high  significance  of  the  element  ‘ Christ.’  Perhaps  it 
would  not  be  too  much  to  say  that  the  compound  name 
is  dealt  with  as  the  ‘ royal  name  ’ of  our  Lord,  the 
name  which  is  given  Him  when  He  is  to  be  designated 
with  special  ceremony  and  solemnity. 

In  320  5^2  24“^^  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  questionable 
whether  we  are  to  read  the  names  together  so  as  to 
yield  the  compound  ‘ Christ  Jesus,’ 
‘ Christ  ^hich  in  that  case  meets  us  here  for  the 
Jesus  Testament,  or 

are  to  take  ‘ Christ  ’ as  the  predicate, — ‘ Jesus  as  the 
Christ.’  The  commentators  seem  inclined  to  follow  the 


3 173  186, 28^  where  also  the  two  names  stand  in  conjunction,  are  dif- 
ferent: the  presence  of  the  substantive  verb  renders  the  construction  of 
the  “ Christ  ” as  predicate  necessary. 


2o6  The  Desigfiations  of  Our  Lord 

latter  course.^  But  In  24"^  where  the  question  is  about 
Paul,  who,  we  know  from  his  Epistles  ( i Thess  2^^ 
5^®,  Rom  passim),  was  accustomed,  at  an  earlier  date 
than  this,  to  use  the  compound  ‘ Christ  Jesus  ’ freely, 
It  seems  difficult  not  to  read  that  compound.®  And  this 
Increases  our  hesitancy  with  reference  to  the  two  earlier 
passages.  Paul’s  familiar  use  of  ‘ Christ  Jesus  ’ must 
have  had  a history  back  of  It:  and  It  seems,  there- 
fore, natural  that  Its  employment  In  the  primitive  com- 
munity should  emerge  Into  light  In  such  passages  as  we 
now  have  before  us.® 

Another  compound  designation  of  Jesus,  which  does 
not  occur  In  the  Gospels,’’^  meets  us  with  some  frequency 

‘The  Lord  ^ Lord  Jesus.’  This  Is  em- 

Jesus*  ployed  by  Luke  himself  In  the  course  of 
the  narrative  (4^^  8^®  ii“®  19^’^^’^^),  and 
Is  also  attributed  to  speakers  whose  words  are  reported, 

4 So  e.g.  the  Revised  English  Version  at  3^0  542^  Meyer-Wendt 

at  3“®:  and  so  also  A.  H.  Blom,  De  Leer  ‘van  het  Messiasrijk  bij  de 
eerste  Christenen,  pp.  292  and  303.  On  320  Blom  says:  “There  can  be 
no  doubt  . . . but  that  Xptarov  ’Irjdovv  is  not  to  be  taken  as  one 

name,  but  that  ^Irjffouv  is  the  epexegetic  appositive  of  Xpiarov,  which 
has  here  its  original  significance  of  a dignity.”  On  the  other  side,  cf. 
Gloag,  Barde,  Rackham  at  320. 

5 So  e.g.  R.  V. 

® Paul  Feine,  Jesus  Chrisius  und  Paulus,  1902,  p.  35,  is  among  those 
(see  note  4)  who  take  the  opposite  view.  He  says:  “This  formula  is 
a specifically  Pauline  one.  The  compound  name  ’‘iT^aou?  Xpurro^i 
is  found  also  in  the  other  N.  T.  writings.  . . . But  the  reverse 
sequence  meets  us  only  in  Paul.  No  doubt  it  may  be  possible  to  dis- 
cover it  if  we  wish  to  do  so  in  Acts.  But  even  in  Acts  320  173  1 85.28^ 
the  Xpi(rr6<;^  standing  before  ^Ir^aod?,  is  the  predicate;  5^2  means 
similarly,  ‘they  preached  the  Messiah  Jesus.’  Then  only  242^  is  left 
eT?  Xptffzdv  ^Iiqffoov  Tziareax;^  Even  here,  however,  it  is  pos- 
sible that  we  do  not  have  the  Pauline  formula,  but  what  is  spoken  of  is 
faith  in  the  Messiah  Jesus.” 

In  Mk  1 61^,  Lk  24^,  it  is  not  genuine. 


The  Designations  in  Acts  207 

— or  to  be  more  specific,  to  both  Peter  15^^)  and 
Paul  (16^^  21^^).  It  is  even  used  as  an  address 

by  Stephen  (7^®).  Indeed  the  fuller  designation,  ‘ the’ 
or  ‘ our  ’ ‘ Lord  Jesus  Christ,’  is  employed  by  Luke  him- 
self (28^^)  and  attributed  alike  to  Peter  the 

whole  body  of  the  Apostles  (15^®),  and  Paul  (20^^). 
In  this  last  formula  we  have  combined  the  three  most 
usual  designations  of  Christ,  and  it  seems  charged  with 
the  deepest  reverence  and  affection  for  His  person. 

Of  course  these  phrases,  ‘ the  Lord  Jesus,’  ‘ the  [our] 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,’  witness  to  the  prevalence  in  the 
Christian  community  of  the  simpler  des- 
‘Lord’  Ignation  ‘ Lord  ’ of  Jesus,  and  this  prev- 
alence is  otherwise  copiously  illustrated 
in  Acts.  As  the  narrative  does  not  concern  what  Jesus 
began  to  do  and  teach  while  in  His  own  person  on 
earth,  but  what  “ after  He  was  ‘received  up  ” He  did 
through  His  servants.  His  owm  person  is  not  a figure  in 
the  narrative,  subsequent  to  the  few  opening  verses 
which  tell  of  the  period  before  the  ascension.  Ac- 
cordingly outside  of  these  verses  (i®)  there  is  no  occa- 
sion to  record  words  directly  addressed  to  Jesus,  except 
in  visions  26^^),  or  in  prayers 

759,60)  ^ these  occasions,  however,  He  is  ad- 

dressed by  the  supreme  honorific  ‘ Lord,’  except  in 
7^^,  where  He  is  addressed  more  fully  as  ‘ Lord  Jesus.’ 
It  is  clear  that  this  formula  is  employed  in  all  cases  with 
the  profoundest  reverence,  and  is  meant  to  be  the 
vehicle  of  the  highest  possible  ascription.  Perhaps  it 
will  be  well  to  focus  our  attention  upon  the  two  or 
three  instances  in  which  it  is  employed  in  direct  prayer 
to  Jesus  y59,60)^  these  He  is  not  merely  treated 
as  divine — for  to  whom  but  God  is  prayer  to  be  ad- 


2o8  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

dressed? — but  also  directly  characterized  as  the  pos- 
sessor of  divine  powers  and  the  exerciser  of  divine 
functions.  It  is  as  He  “ that  knoweth  the  hearts  of 
all  men  ” that  He  is  appealed  to  at  as  the  forgiver 
of  sin  at  and  as  the  receiver  of  the  spirits  of  the 
dying  saints  at  7^^.  All  these  traits  are  assigned  to 
Jesus  in  the  Gospel  narratives,  where  Jesus  claimed 
authority  even  on  earth  to  forgive  sins  (Mk  2^®  ||)  and 
represents  Himself  as  the  judge  before  whom  all  were 
at  length  to  stand  and  receive  according  to  the  deeds 
done  in  the  body  (Mt  25^^)  : where  He  is  represented 
as  knowing  what  was  in  men  and  needing  not  that 

® De  Wette,  Meyer,  Wendt,  Nosgen,  Blass,  in  loc.,  wish  this  passage 
to  be  understood  as  addressed  to  God;  so  also  Sven  Herner,  Die  An- 
fivendung  des  IVortes  xbpio<;  im  N.  T.,  1903,  p.  17;  “In  the  sen- 
tence, ‘Thou,  Lord,  who  knowest  the  hearts  of  all  men’  God  is 

probably  meant.  According  to  15®  (4“^)  and  Lk  God  is  the 

searcher  of  hearts,  and  the  prayer  of  the  primitive  Church  recorded  at 
424-30  is  also  addressed  to  God.  Several  exegetes,  however,  are  of  the 
opinion  that  it  is  directed  to  the  Lord  Christ;  and  the  6 xbpio<;  A-q<ToT)<i 
of  v.  21  can  be  urged  in  support  of  this.”  Among  the  exegetes  who 
consider  it  to  be  addressed  to  Christ  are  Bengel,  Olshausen,  Baumgar- 
ten,  Lechler,  Bisping,  and  van  Oosterzee  (see  the  solid  statement  of  the 
last)  : as  also  Alexander,  Hackett,  Gloag,  Barde,  Felton,  Rendall. 
Rackham  prefers  to  leave  the  question  undecided. 

^ That  the  prayer  in  is  addressed  to  Jesus  is  pretty  generally 
allowed.  Cf.  e.g.  Sven  Herner,  p.  16:  “We  think  we  can  maintain 
that  in  Stephen’s  prayer  the  words,  ‘ Lord,  lay  not  this  sin  to  their 
charge’  (7®®),  are  directed  to  Jesus,  since  the  immediately  preceding 
verse  has  the  expression  ‘ Lord  Jesus,  receive  my  spirit.’  ” Also  A.  H. 
Blom,  p.  126:  “It  is  probable  that  the  same  person  is  addressed  by  the 
xbpis  as  was  called  xbpte  '‘Irjffod  in  v.  59.”  Blom  points  out  that 
it  is  the  dominant  conception  of  Acts  that  the  forgiveness  of  sins 
is  to  be  had  in  Christ:  therefore  men  are  baptized  in  His  name  (2^® 
22^®),  and  He  has  been  exalted  to  God’s  right  hand  as  a Prince  and  a 
Saviour  (5^^),  and  all  who  believe  in  Him  receive  forgiveness  through 
His  name  (lo^^)  j “and  therefore,”  he  adds,  “Stephen  can  have  had 
Him  in  mind  when  he  prayed  for  his  foes,  Lord,  reckon  not  this  sin  to 
their  charge  (7®®).” 


The  Designations  in  Acts 


209 


anyone  should  teach  Him  what  were  the  thoughts  of 


their  hearts  (Mk  2®)  : and  where  His  promise  to  the 


thief  was  that  he  should  be  that  day  with  Him  in  Para- 
dise (Lk  23^^).  It  can  occasion  no  surprise,  therefore, 
that  He  should  be  appealed  to  after  His  return  to  His 
glory  as  at  once  the  searcher  of  hearts,  the  forgiver 
of  sins,  and  the  receiver  of  the  spirits  of  the  saints. 
What  we  learn  in  the  meanwhile  is  that  to  the  infant 
community  the  ascended  Jesus  was  their  God,  whom 
they  addressed  in  prayer  and  from  whom  they  sought 
in  prayer  the  activities  which  specifically  belong  to  God. 

Quite  naturally  in  these  circumstances  the  chief  nar- 
rative name  for  Jesus  in  i\cts  becomes  the  honorific 


‘Lord*  as 
Narrative 
Name 


‘ the  Lord,’  which  is  employed  about 
twice  as  frequently  as  the  simple 


‘ Jesus, and  which  is  occasionally  given 
more  precision  by  taking  the  form  of  ‘ the  Lord  Jesus  ’ 


(433  gi6  j j2o  j^5,i3,i7^  t ^j^g  Loj-d  Jesus  Christ’ 


(28^^).  All  of  these  designations  are  placed  also  on 
the  lips  of  actors  in  the  history  recounted.  Thus  Peter 
speaks  of  Jesus  as  ‘the  Lord’  in  [2^^]  2^®  12^^ 


as 


‘ the  Lord  Jesus  ’ in  1 5^^  and  as  ‘ the  Lord  Jesus 


Christ’  in  ii^^:  Paul  as  ‘the  Lord 


13 


10,11,12 


19 


in  20 

26^^  as  ‘the  Lord  Jesus’  in  16^^  21^^,  and  as 

‘the  Lord  Jesus  Christ’  in  20^^;  and  others  speak  of 


Him  as  ‘the  Lord’  in  as  ‘the  Lord 


Jesus’  in  7^^  and  as  ‘the  Lord  Jesus  Christ’  in  15^^ 
It  is  quite  clear  that  ‘ the  Lord  ’ is  a favorite  designation 
of  Jesus  in  this  book,  and  was  such  also  in  the  com- 
munity whose  usage  it  reflects. “ And  it  is  equally  clear 


[247][5l4]  g25  ^1,10, 11, 15, [17], 27, 29, 31, 35, 42  n21,21,23 


1^3,23  i535,[36],40  i6[14],[32]  jg8,9,25  i^20  23II. 

Cf.  Sven  Herner,  Die  An^endung  des  Wortes  xupto^  im  N.  T., 
p.  20:  “The  frequent  employment  of  the  word  xupio<;  in  Acts  is 


X 


210 


The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

that  in  the  use  of  this  term  what  is  primarily  expressed 
is  the  profoundest  reverence  on  the  part  of  the  com- 
munity and  the  highest  conceivable  exaltation  and  au- 
thority on  the  part  of  Jesus  Himself.  It  belongs  to  the 
^ situation  that  it  is  often  extremely  difficult  to  deter- 
^mine  whether  by  ‘ Lord  ’ Jesus  or  God  is  meant.^^  That 
is  to  say,  so  clearly  is  Jesus  ‘ God  ’ to  this  writer  and 

shown  not  merely  in  the  cases  where  it  refers  to  God,  but  even  more 
where  it  is  Christ  that  is  spoken  of.  Acts  loves  to  call  Christ  ‘ Lord.’ 
According  to  2^6  God  has  made  Jesus  Lord  and  Christ;  He  is  ‘the 
Lord  over  all’  and,  therefore.  He  is  often  spoken  of  by  the 

designation  of  ‘Lord’  (220.21,34  9i,[5,6]io,ii,i5,i7,27  „i6  [1510  ig25] 
2q28  [2210,16]  23I1  [26I®]).  To  these  must  be  added  the  passages  in 
which  Christ  is  addressed  with  the  term  ‘Lord’(iO  759,60  ^5, [6], 10, 13 
238,10,19  2610)^  and  a series  of  citations  in  which  He  is  called  ‘Lord,’ 
but  in  connection  with  a ‘Jesus’  or  ‘Jesus  Christ’  (i2i  433  gie  [^2S 

Io48]  „17,20  [14IO]  1511,26  i631  195,13,17  2021,24,35  2ll3  2821).  ActS 

speaks  therefore  extremely  often  of  Christ  by  the  designation  ‘ Lord,’ 
even  if  we  neglect  the  passages  adduced  at  an  earlier  point,  where 
decision  is  uncertain  whether  God  or  Christ  is  meant.” 

12  Cf.  Sven  Herner,  op.  cit.,  p.  i6:  “Whereas  the  Gospels  depict 

the  life  of  Jesus  on  earth,  the  narrative  in  Acts  revolves  around  the 
Jesus  exalted  to  the  right  hand  of  God,  whom  God  has  made  Lord  and 
Christ  (226).  It  is  He  who  leads  to  eternal  life;  He  is  the  Lord  of 
life  (3!^).  He  is  the  Saviour,  and  there  is  salvation  in  no  other  (4I2). 
He  deals  out  His  blessings  (3I®)  and  pours  out  the  Holy  Spirit  on  be- 
lievers (222).  His  power  is  not  bounded  by  the  limits  of  space  (26H), 
and  His  flesh  shall  not  see  corruption  (221).  He  is  not  only  the  Lord 
and  Master  according  to  the  ordinary  representation  of  the  Gospels  (cf. 
e.g.  Mt  2i2,  Mk  ii2,  Lk  1921  with  Mt  2612,  Mk  1411^,  Lk  22I1  and  John 
1312),  but  He  is  the  Lord  over  all  (io26).  Accordingly  Acts  can  leave 
it  undetermined  whether  certain  assertions  are  to  be  made  of  God  or 
Christ;  a designation  is  employed  which  is  common  to  both,  and  it  can 
often  not  be  decided  whether  God  or  Christ  is  meant, — indeed  some- 
times it  seems  almost  as  if  Acts  had  chosen  a common  designation  just 
because  it  was  unnecessary  more  precisely  to  express  whether  what  was 
spoken  of  was  to  be  ascribed  to  God  or  Christ.  It  is  thus  character- 
istic of  Acts  that  a large  number  of  passages  occur  where  we  cannot  be 


2II 


The  Designations  in  Acts 

those  whose  speech  he  reports  that  the  common  term 
‘ Lord  ’ vibrates  between  the  two  and  leaves  the  reader 
often  uncertain  which  is  intended.^®  The  assimilation 
of  Jesus  to  God  thus  witnessed  is  illustrated  also  in 
other  ways.  Thus,  for  example,  in  Peter’s  Pentecostal 
sermon  Jesus  is  conceived  as  sitting  at  the  right  hand 
of  God  (2^^)  and  as  having  been  constituted  “both 
Lord  and  Christ,”  where  the  conjunction  is  significant 
(2^^)  : and  more  explicitly  still  He  is  designated  in  a 
later  discourse  of  the  same  Peter,  “ Lord  of  all  ” 
(10^®),  that  is  to  say,  universal  sovereign,  a phrase 
which  recalls  the  great  declaration  of  Rom  9^  to  the 
effect  that  He  is  “ God  over  all,”  as  indeed  He  who 
sits  on  the  throne  of  God  must  be.^^ 

sure  whether  xupto?  means  God  or  Christ  ^31,35,42 

Jl21,21,23,24  j22,10,11.12,[44],47,48,49  143,23  i^35,36  j514,15,32  jg8,9,25 

igl0,20  2q19  2i14).” 

13  Therefore  commentators  have  been  tempted  sometimes  to  seek  out 
an  easy  and  mechanical  rule  of  discrimination.  In  his  Neueste  Theol. 
Journal,  IV.,  pp.  11-24  (cf.  iii.  p.  501),  Gabler,  e.g.,  maintained  that 
anarthrous  xbpio<^  always  is  God  in  the  N.  T.,  while  articled  xbptog 
is  always  Jesus.  Winer  in  the  first  and  second  editions  of  his  Gram- 
mar blindly  repeated  this.  But  on  investigating  the  matter  he  was  soon 
convinced  of  the  error,  and  showed  in  his  monograph,  Disputatio  de 
sensu  <vocum  x6pto<^  et  6 xf)pio<s  im  Actis  et  Epistolis  Apostolorum 
(Erlang.,  1828),  pp.  26,  that  the  assumed  rule  did  not  hold  good. 
Moses  Stuart  had  meanwhile  taken  up  the  whole  subject  and  printed 
the  results  of  his  researches  in  a somewhat  rambling  but  useful  paper 
in  the  first  volume  of  the  Biblical  Repository  (1831,  Oct.),  to  the  same 
effect.  Dr.  A.  Plummer  in  his  commentary  on  Luke  repeats  as  regards 
that  book  the  artificial  statement  of  Gabler.  In  truth  the  distribu- 
tion of  the  usage  between  Christ  and  God  cannot  in  any  book  of  the 
N.  T.  be  determined  on  such  grounds:  and  the  difficulty  in  determining 
the  reference  is  rooted  ultimately  in  the  assimilation  of  the  two  persons 
in  the  minds  of  the  writers.  Cf.  Harnack,  History  of  Dogma,  i.  p.  183. 

i^Cf.  Meyer  on  and 


212 


The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

That  in  this  rich  development  of  the  conception  of 
the  Lordship  of  Jesus,  His  Messianic  dignity  is  not 
^ out  of  mind  is  already  apparent  from  the 

Man°  phraseology  of  2^^}^  The  emphasis  of 
( Peter’s  preaching  turns,  indeed,  pre- 
cisely on  the  fact  that  God  has  made  the  Jesus  whom 
^the  Jews  crucified  “ both  Lord  and  Christ.”  It  is  thus 
with  Acts  as  truly  as  with  the  Gospels  the  Messianic 
office  of  Jesus  on  which  the  greatest  stress  is  laid.  Nat- 
urally as  Jesus  is  not  a speaker  in  the  narrative  of  Acts, 
His  own  favorite  self-designation  of  ‘ Son  of  Man  ’ 
is  here  conspicuous  by  its  absence.  It  occurs  only  a 
single  time,  when  the  dying  Stephen  declared  that  he 
saw  the  heavens  opened  and  the  ‘ Son  of  Man  ’ stand- 
ing at  the  right  hand  of  God  (7^®).  This  is  the  only 
instance  in  the  whole  New  Testament  where  this  desig- 
nation is  employed  by  anyone  except  our  Lord  Himself : 
Stephen’s  use  of  it  seems  a reflection  of  our  Lord’s 
declaration,  “ Henceforth  ye  shall  see  the  Son  of  Man 
sitting  at  the  right  hand  of  power”  (Mt  26^^  ||),  and 
is  at  once  Stephen’s  testimony  to  the  greatness  of  his 
Lord  in  His  divine  Majesty,  and  a witness  to  the  genu- 
ineness of  the  whole  series  of  declarations  attributed 
to  our  Lord  in  which  He  saw  Himself  in  the  Danielic 
vision  and  developed  on  that  basis  His  conception  of 
His  Messiahship  in  its  earthy  humiliation  and  subse- 
quent elevation  to  participation  in  the  divine  glory. 

The  great  companion  designation  ‘ Son  of  God  ’ is 

^®Cf.  e.g.  A.  H.  Blom,  De  Leer  ‘van  het  Messiasrijk,  etc.,  pp.  58-9: 
“ Christians  were  thoroughly  convinced  that  the  Messiah  had  appeared 
in  Jesus  the  Nazarene.  This  was  the  main  content  of  the  preaching  of 
the  Apostles,  whether  they  turned  to  the  Jews  (Acts  222-36  ^13,26  48-12 
£29-32  y62  p2o^  etc.),  01  to  the  Samaritans  (8^),  or  to  the  heathen 

^(io34-42  IJ16-41)  » 


The  Designations  in  Acts  213 


‘Son  of 
God* 


almost  as  rare  In  Acts  as  the  ‘ Son  of  Man.’  This  pre- 
cise designation,  Indeed,  occurs  but  once, 
where  we  are  told  that  Paul  Immediately 
after  his  conversion  began  to  proclaim 
X In  the  synagogues  of  Damascus  Jesus  as  the  ‘ Son  of 
XGod’  w^hlch  Is  explained  as  meaning  that  he 

X proved  Jesus  to  be  ‘the  Christ’  (9^^).  In  his  speech 
In  the  synagogue  of  Pisidian  Antioch,  Paul  Indeed  de- 
clared that  by  raising  up  Jesus  God  fulfilled  the  an- 
nouncement of  the  second  Psalm,  “ Thou  art  my  Son, 
^thls  day  have  I begotten  Thee  ” (13^^)  ; and  the  risen 
Jesus  Is  quoted  as  twice  speaking  of  God  as  “ the 
Father”  and  Peter  Is  cited  as  repeating  one  of 

these  declarations  In  his  Pentecostal  sermon  (2^^).  Oc- 
casion has  been  taken  from  the  circumstance  that  In 
all  these  three  cases  of  allusion  to  the  ‘ Father  ’ the 
term  employed  Is  ‘ the  Father  ’ to  suggest  that  It  Is 
not  specifically  Jesus’  Father  but  the  general  Father  of 
spirits  that  Is  Intended.  To  this  Is  added  the  sugges- 
/Tlon  that  In  Paul’s  allusion  to  the  second  Psalm  it  IS' 
^ of  the  Incarnation  or  even  perhaps  of  the  resurrection 
("that  he  Is  thinking  as  the  point  when  the  Son  was  be- 
(^gotten.  The  conclusion  is  then  drawn  that  In  Acts 
there  Is  no  allusion  to  a metaphysical  Sonship  of 
Christ.^®  It  must  be  frankly  admitted  that  had  we  these 


Cf.  e.g.  A.  H.  Blom,  De  Leer  ‘van  het  Messiasrijk,  etc.,  pp.  58-9, 
70,  71 : “ We  think  we  may  conclude  that  the  Christians  as  little  as  the 
Jews  connected  with  the  ‘ Son  of  God  ’ the  conception  of  a divine  na- 
, ture;  and  that  the  ethical  element  in  the  idea  of  the  Messiah  lay  more 
in  the  Tzdl<s  than  in  the  ul6<s  of  God”  . . . “It  attracts  our  at- 
tention that  Jesus  here  and  there  speaks  of  God  as  ‘ the  Father  * 
(Acts  and  that  Peter  too  on  one  occasion  made  use  of  this  desig- 

nation (2^3).  Seeing  how  that  elsewhere  in  the  N.T.  the  most  inti- 
mate communion  of  God  with  men,  His  life  for  and  in  men,  is  ex- 
pressed by  this  term,  it  is  all  the  more  remarkable  that  Jesus  by  speak- 


214  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

passages  alone  to  consider,  we  might  hesitate  to  ascribe 
to  Acts  the  doctrine  of  a divine  Messiah.  But  this  is 
by  no  means  the  case,  and  we  need  only  note  in  passing 
that  the  title  of  ‘ Son  of  God  ’ is  very  little  in  evidence 
in  Acts  either  in  its  precise  form  or  in  its  cognate  modes 
of  expression.  Nevertheless,  the  locution  ‘ the  Father  ’ 
does  not  appear  in  the  usage  of  it  here  to  be  without 
suggestion  of  its  correlative  ‘ the  Son  ’ ; and  Paul’s  cita- 
tion of  the  second  Psalm  does  not  seem  to  be  without 
implication  of  a Sonship  for  Jesus  lying  deeper  than 
either  His  resurrection  or  His  incarnation. 

The  prevailing  Messianic  designation  in  Acts  is  the 
simple  ‘ Christ,’  and  Luke  tells  us  that  the  staple  of 
the  Apostolic  teaching  was  that  Jesus 

Christ*  Christ’  8^  9“  and 

illustrates  this  fact  by  instances  recorded 
both  from  Peter  ^18,20^  from  Paul  (17^ 

26^^).  The  general  employment  of  the  compound 
names,  ‘Jesus  Christ,’  ‘the  Lord  Jesus  Christ’  (or 
‘ our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  ’)  and  even  ‘ Christ  Jesus,’  tes- 
tifies to  the  fixedness  of  the  conviction  that  Jesus  was 
‘ the  Christ  ’ and  the  close  attachment  of  the  title  to 
His  person  as  at  least  a quasi-proper  name.  Luke  does 
not  himself  make  use  of  any  other  Messianic  title, 
except  in  the  one  instance  when  he  tells  us  that  Paul 

ing  not  of  His  but  of  the  Father,  does  not  lay  claim  by  it  for  Himself 
alone  to  such  a relation  to  God.  And  Peter  follows  Him  in  this,  since  he 
employs  the  term  to  the  Jews,  who  did  not  yet  believe  in  Christ,  from 
which  it  may  be  inferred  that  this  fatherlike  love  of  God  for  men  was 
not  conceived  as  dependent  on  their  belief  in  Christ,  but  as  grounded 
in  His  nature.  . . . And  if  we  were  not  arbitrary  in  suggesting 

that  for  the  early  Christians  the  title  ‘Servant  of  Jehovah*  was  of 
much  more  ethical  significance  than  that  of  ‘ Son  of  God,’  it  would 
seem  to  follow  that  we  should  not  seek  a rich  ethical  sense  in  the  name 
of  Father.” 


The  Designations  in  Acts  215 

on  his  conversion  began  at  once  “ to  proclaim  Jesus 
that  He  Is  the  Son  of  God”  (9^^).  But  he  quotes 
quite  a rich  variety  of  such  titles  as  employed  by  others. 
To  Peter  there  Is  ascribed,  for  example,  a considerable 
series,  which,  moreover,  he  Is  represented  as  weaving 
together  In  a most  striking  way,  as  all  alike  designa- 
tions of  the  same  Jesus,  which  bring  out  the  several 
aspects  of  the  unitary  conception  fulfilled  In  Him. 
Prominent  among  them  are  those  which  apply  to  Jesus 
the  prophecies  concerning  ‘ the  Righteous  Servant  of 
Jehovah  ’ (3^^’^^’“®,  cf.  and  ‘ the  Prophet  like  unto 

(Moses’  (3^^’^®),  which  are  Inextricably  combined  with 
( those  which  speak  of  Him  as  ‘ the  Anointed  Klng.’^’ 

With  respect  to  this  intermingling  of  designations,  cf.  A.  H.  Blom, 
De  Leer  ‘van  het  Messiasrijk  bet  de  eerste  Christenen,  1863,  p.  48: 
“ It  scarcely  needs  to  be  said  that  only  the  religious-minded  were  in  a 
position  rightly  to  understand  Jesus,  and  that  undoubtedly  the  most  of 
those  who  became  His  followers  in  the  first  years  belonged  to  this  class. 
The  question  thus  becomes,  What  was  the  conception  which  they  had 
formed  of  the  Messiah,  when  they  came  to  know  Jesus?  And  the  Book 
of  Acts  answers  us,  that  the  Messiah,  in  their  view,  was  to  be  the 
offspring  and  successor  of  David,  a Prophet  like  to  Moses,  the  Servant 
of  Jehovah,  the  Son  of  God  and  the  Son  of  Man.  The  three  first  of 
these  characterizations  describe  His  dignity,  while  the  two  last  raise 
the  question  for  us  what  nature  was  ascribed  to  Him.”  Again,  pp. 
55-56:  “Diverse  as  were  the  ideas  expressed  in  these  three  views  of  a 
King  like  David,  a Prophet  like  Moses,  and  the  Servant  of  Jehovah, 
and  little  as  the  particulars  in  which  they  were  developed  permitted 
themselves  to  be  united  into  a unitary,  consistent,  concrete  conception, 
yet  since  the  Messiah  was  seen  in  all  three,  they  were  looked  upon  as 
identical.  Accordingly  what  was  said  of  one  of  them  was  considered 
unhesitatingly  to  be  applicable  to  the  others.  A striking  example  of 
this  is  afforded  by  the  words  applied  to  Jesus  in  Mt  17^ — ‘ This  is  my 
Son,  the  Beloved,  in  whom  I am  well  pleased;  hear  ye  Him.’  Here 
the  predicate,  ‘ my  Son,’  belongs  to  the  idea  of  the  King  of  Ps  2 ; the 
‘ in  whom  I am  well  pleased  ’ is  a trait  only  of  the  portrait  of  the 
Servant  of  Jehovah  (Is  42^);  and  the  ‘hear  Him’  points  to  what  is 
due  to  the  prophet  (Deut  We  meet  with  a like  phenomenon  in 


2i6 


The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 


In  Peter’s  early  discourses  ‘ the  Servant  (:ra7c)  of 
God  ’ is  one  of  the  most  notable  of  the  designations  of 
Jesus  cf.  4“^’^®)  ; and  along  with 

occurs  ‘ the  Holy  and  Righteous 
One  ’ (3^^)^®  which  belongs  to  the  same 
series  of  designations;  and  in  the  same  context  appeal 
is  made  likewise  to  Moses’  prophecy  of  a Prophet  like 
unto  himself  (3"^’^®)  while  to  these  is  added  further 


Acts.  It  is  declared  that  what  stands  written  in  Ps  2^  of  the  King — 
‘ The  Kings  of  the  earth  set  themselves  and  the  princes  take  counsel 
together,  against  the  Lord  and  against  His  Anointed  ’ — is  fulfilled  in 
God’s  holy  Servant  (Acts  cf.  verse  30).  Similarly  the  idea  of 

the  prophet  is  brought  into  connection  with  that  of  the  Servant  of  Jeho- 
>^vah  when  Peter,  after  adducing  the  words,  ‘A  shall  the  Lord 

your  God  raise  up,’  announces  that  God  has  actually  sent  him  to  them, 
‘having  raised  up  to  you  His  servant  Jesus’  (Acts  And  if  the 

splendid  successor  of  David  received  the  glory,  which  the  Holy  One 
of  God  expected  (Acts  so  also  the  sufferings  of  the  Servant  of 

Jehovah  were  unhesitatingly  assigned  to  the  King  (3^®),  as  Peter  de- 
clares that  God  through  all  His  prophets  has  proclaimed  that  ‘ His 
Christ  should  suffer.’  ” 

Cf.  Blom,  op.  cit.,  p.  33:  “Whatever  weight  can  be  attached  here 
to  the  appeal  to  this  anointing  of  Jesus  with  the  Holy  Spirit  of  proph- 
ecy and  with  power,  as  a proof  that  He  must  be  the  Messiah,  there  was 

yet  another  side  to  the  manifestation  of  Jesus  which  strongly  impressed 
the  Christians  and  by  which  they  were  led  to  recognize  His  religious 
greatness.  He  was  the  offio^  (Acts  2-’^  13^^) > the  dtxato?  (7^^ 

22^‘^f  the  xa\  dtxato<s  (s^^),  the  dyio<$  7r«r?  'coo  dsou  (4-i>80). 

And  this  He  was  not  only  after  His  exaltation,  but  already  on 
earth,  for  the  guilt  of  the  Jews  was  so  great  just  because  they  had 
rejected  and  killed  Him,  the  dyio^  xai  di'xaco?^  instead  of  a mur- 
derer. These  general  predicates,  however,  are  not  enough  to  give  us 
a just  notion  of  the  perfection  which  they  saw  in  Jesus.  It  is  undoubt- 
edly wrong  for  men  to  see  nothing  more  in  them  than  that  He  was 
guiltless  in  the  matters  of  which  He  was  accused  by  the  Jews.  This 
is  already  plain  from  the  emphasis  with  which  He  is  named  6 dyco?, 
b dixato<$.  . . . And  so  the  predicate  6 dyio<$  must  include  in 

itself  a religious  and  ethical  sense  . . .” 

1®  Cf.  Blom,  op.  cit.,  pp.  50-57:  “Although  they  [the  Jews]  applied 
these  words  to  a particular  person,  they  do  not  seem  to  have  all  thought 


The  Designations  in  Acts  217 

the  striking  title  of  the  ‘ Prince  ’ or  ‘ Author  ’ ‘ of  life  ’ 
(3^®).  In  other  discourses  Peter  calls  Jesus  a ‘ Prince 
and  Saviour’  (5^^)  and  Indeed  even  ‘Judge  of  the 
quick  and  the  dead’  (10^^).  The  composite  portrait 
which  he  presents  of  Jesus  the  Messiah  as  he  passes 
freely  from  one  of  these  designations  to  another  Is  a 
complex  and  very  lofty  one:  what  Is  most  apparent  Is 
that  he  conceives  Him  as  the  focus  upon  which  all  the 
rays  of  Old  Testament  prophecy  converge,  and  as  ex- 
alted above  all  earthly  limitations.  A somewhat  simi- 
lar list  of  designations  Is  placed  on  the  lips  of  Paul. 
^To  him  the  ‘Lord  Jesus’  (16^^  21^^)  Is  ‘the 

^Christ’  (17^  26^^),  ‘the  Holy  One’  ‘the 

^Righteous  One  ’ (2  2^^  cf.  7^^  Stephen) who  has  come 
X as  a ‘Saviour’  (13^^)  to  Israel,  and  who  though  a 

of  the  same  one ; and  while  some  held  ‘ him  of  whom  Moses  wrote  in 
the  law’  (Jno  or  ‘the  prophet  who  should  come  into  the  world’ 
(6^^  cf.  for  the  Messiah,  others  must  have  distinguished  Him  from 
the  Messiah  (i2i.  cf.  20,  740,  cf.  4i),  According  to  these  last,  he  was, 
in  harmony  with  the  prophecy  of  Malachi  (3I  4®  ®),  the  returning 
Elijah,  who  was  to  prepare  the  way  before  the  Messiah  (Mt  17^*^).  The 
Christians  did  not  share  this  view.  While  they  also  had  expected  an 
Elijah  and  had  found  him  in  John  the  Baptist  (Acts  132^),  they  con- 
ceived that  the  promise  of  Moses  had  found  its  fulfilment  only  in  the 
Messiah;  and  Peter,  therefore,  in  his  preaching,  appealed  directly  to 
these  words  (Acts  3^2),  and  Stephen  also  seems  to  have  meant  the  same 
thing  (7^^).  Accordingly  on  their  basis  the  gift  of  prophecy  was  a 
main  element  of  the  idea  of  the  Messiah,  and  that,  such  a gift  as  placed 
Him  by  the  side  of  Moses  and  elevated  Him  above  all  other  prophets. 
There  was  certainly  connected  with  this  also  an  inner  communion 
with  God;  and  God  was  understood  to  speak  with  Him  face  to  face, 
and  to  reveal  to  Him  His  counsel  more  clearly  as  in  the  case  of  Moses 
(Ex  33^1,  Numb  12®*®).” 

20  Cf.  2^7.  In  both  cases  it  is  derived  from  Ps  16^®,  and  the  term 

employed  is  oVro?,  not  as  in  3^^,  cf.  Mk  Lk  4*^,  Jno  6®®, 

I Jno  2^0^  Rev  3"^.  See  on  the  titles  of  this  sort  Hastings’  D.  C.  G.,  I. 
pp.  730-31. 

21  Cf.  Stanton,  op.  cit.,  p.  170. 


2lS 


The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 


‘Man’  is  ‘God’s  own  Son’  (13^^),  nay, 

In  some  high  sense  ‘ God  ’ Himself  (20^®), — for  it  was 
by  nothing  else  than  “ the  blood  of  God  ” that  the 
Church  was  purchased.^^ 

A rapid  enumeration  of  the  mere  titles  applied  to 
Christ,  such  as  we  have  made,  fails  utterly  to  repro- 
duce the  impression  which  they  make  on  the  reader  as 
he  meets  them  In  the  course  of  the  narrative.  That 
Impression  Is  to  the  effect  that  although  the  true  hu- 
manity of  our  Lord  is  thoroughly  appreciated  (dvdpconoc, 
5“®,  cf.  7^®:  2^^  cf.  Lk  24^®),  yet  it  is  the 

r majesty  of  this  man  which  really  fills  the  minds  of  these 
"first  Christians,  as  they  perceive  in  Him  not  merely  a 
man  of  God’s  appointment,  representing  God  on  earth. 
In  whom  all  that  they  can  conceive  to  be  the  source  of 
dignity  In  Old  Testament  prophecy  meets  and  finds  Its 
fulfillment  (10^^’^®),  but  also  something  far  above  hu- 
manity, which  can  be  expressed  only  in  terms  of  precise 
deity  (20^®). 

A side-light  is  thrown  upon  the  high  estimate  which 
was  placed  among  these  early  Christians  on  Jesus’ 
person  by  the  usurpation  by  it  of  the 
‘The  Name*  Old  Testament  pregnant  use  of  the 
term  “ Name.”  As  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment we  read  continually  of  “ the  Name  of  Jehovah  ” 
as  the  designation  of  His  manifested  majesty,  and  even 
of  simply  “ the  Name  ” used  absolutely  with  the  same 
high  connotation,  so  in  Acts  we  read  of  the  Name  of 


22 The  variant  reading,  “the  blood  of  the  Lord,”  means  the  same 
thing.  But  Dr.  Hort  justly  says,  “roD  Osod  is  assuredly  genuine.” 
See  for  a discussion  of  the  reading,  Westcott  and  Hort,  The  Ne^w  Tesla’- 
ment  in  the  Original  Greek,  ii.  pp.  98-99. 


The  Designations  in  Acts  219 

Jesus  Christ,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  old  phrase, and 
again  of  simply  “the  Name”  (5^^  cf.  3 Jno  7)  used 
absolutely  of  Jesus.  Those  who  were  persecuted  for 
His  sake  we  are  told  rejoiced  “ that  they  were  counted 
worthy  to  suffer  dishonor  for  the  Name”  (5^^  cf.  3 
Jno  7).^^  In  the  Old  Testament  this  would  have  meant 
the  Name  of  Jehovah:  here  it  means  the  Name  of 
Jesus.^®  “ The  Name,”  as  it  has  been  truly  remarked, 
“ had  become  a watchword  of  the  faith,  and  is  conse- 
quently used  alone  to  express  the  name  of  Jesus,  as 
it  stood  in  former  days  for  the  Name  of  Jehovah  (Lev 
24II)  ” 26  Nothing  could  more  convincingly  bear  in  upon 
us  the  position  to  which  Jesus  had  been  exalted  in  men’s 
thoughts  than  this  constant  tendency  to  substitute  Him 
In  their  religious  outlook  for  Jehovah. 

23  Only  in  citations  from  the  O.  T.  (221  1514,17)  jggg  Name  of 
God  ” appear  in  Acts.  On  the  other  hand  the  phrase  “ the  Name  of 
Jesus  Christ”  is  quite  frequent:  2^^  36.(16)  ^10,18,30  540  312,10  ^14,15 
916,27  iq43,48  1520  16I8  jg5,i3.i7  2J13  221®  26®.  Instances  like  4'’'. 12. it 
$28  ^21^  where  “ the  Name  ” or  “ this  Name  ” is  used  more  absolutely, 
are  quite  instructive  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  significance  of  the 
term.  Only  at  5^1  is  the  completely  absolute  use  of  it  found. 

21  Cf.  Meyer  on  5II:  “The  absolute  ro  ovofia  denotes  the  namexar^ 
— namely  ‘Jesus  Messiah’  (3®  4!®) — the  confession  and  an- 
nouncement of  which  was  always  the  highest  and  holiest  concern  of 
the  apostles.  Analogous  is  the  use  of  the  absolute  (Lev  24H»i®), 
in  which  the  Hebrew  understood  the  name  of  his  Jehovah  as  implied 
of  itself.  Cf.  3 Jno  7.”  Cf.  on  the  general  question  Giesebrecht,  Die 
alttest.  Schdtzung  des  Gottesnamens,  p.  1901 ; G.  B.  Gray,  B.  £>.,  ill. 
p.  480,  and  also  Conybeare,  J.  Q.  R.,  ix.  p.  66,  and  Chase,  7.  T.  S., 
January,  1907. 

25 That  the  Name  was  simply  “Jesus”  is  thought  by  Hackett  and 
Barde:  that  it  was  “ Christ,”  by  De  Wette  and  Gloag:  that  It  was  “the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ”  is  Blass’  view;  and  that  it  was  “the  Messiah 
Jesus”  is  Wendt’s,  as  it  was  Meyer’s. 

2®Rashdall,  in  loc. 


THE  CORROBORATION  OF  THE  EPISTLES 
OF  PAUL 


In  passing  from  the  book  of  Acts  to  Paul’s  Epistles, 
we  are  not  advancing  to  a new  period,  in  order  that  we 
Relative  Early  niay  observe  how  Jesus  had  come  to  be 
Date  of  Paul’s  thought  of  at  a somewhat  later  date,  in 
Letters  developing  thought  of  Christians.^ 

Tn  point  of  fact,  none  of  Paul’s  letters  are  of  a later 
- ^ date  than  the  Acts,  and  the  earlier  of  them  come  from 
a time  which  antedates  the  composition  of  that  book 
by  ten  or  fifteen  years.  What  we  are  passing  to  is 
merely  a new  form  of  literature, — didactic  literature 
as  distinguished  from  narrative.  And  what  we  are  to 
observe  is  not  a later  development  of  the  Christian 
conception  of  Jesus,  but  only  more  directly  and  pre- 
cisely how  the  Christians  of  the  first  age  thought  of 
Jesus. 

The  book  of  Acts  does  indeed  tell  us  not  only  how 
Paul  and  his  companions  thought  and  spoke  of  Jesus 


1 On  the  witness  of  Paul,  see  in  general  R.  J.  Knowling,  The  Wit- 
ness of  the  Epistles,  1892;  The  Testimony  of  St.  Paul  to  Christ,  1905* 
It  used  to  be  the  fashion  to  attribute  to  Paul  a very  “ primitive  ” chris- 
tology  supposed  to  find  expression  In  Romans,  i and  2 Corinthians  and 
Galatians;  largely  on  the  ground  of  this  these  Epistles  were  allowed 
to  be  his.  It  is  now  the  fashion,  recognizing  that  the  christology  of 
these  Epistles  too  Is  high,  to  represent  Paul  as  the  author  of  the  deifying 
christology  which,  so  it  is  said,  has  spread  from  him  through  the  N.  T. 
“Paul  is  everywhere  the  starting  point,”  says  Wernle  {Beginnings  of 
Christianity,  ii,,  p.  294)  : “ It  is  his  Gospel  which  now  speaks  to  us 
from  the  words  of  Jesus  and  the  original  Apostles.”  The  Gospels,  from 

220 


221 


The  Corroboration  of  Paul 

they  presented  Him  to  the  faith  of  men;  but  also 
how  Peter  and  his  fellow-evangelists  of  the  first  days 
of  the  Gospel  proclamation  thought  and  spoke  of  Him : 
and  to  this  extent  the  information  derived  from  It  re- 
flects an  earlier  usage.  But  neither  in  Acts  nor  in  Paul’s 
(^pistles  is  there  any  hint  that  Peter  and  Paul  stand  re- 
The  Value  Oated  to  one  another  in  their  thought  of 
of  their  fChrist  as  representatives  of  a less  and 
Testimony  ^ developed  conception.*  On  the 

contrary  in  Acts  the  conception  of  the  two,  though 
^^lothed  in  different  forms  of  speech,  is  notably  the  same : 
and  in  Paul’s  Epistles,  though  differences  are  noted  be- 
tween the  other  Apostles  and  himself  in  other  matters, 
there  is  none  signalized  on  this  central  point.  And  it 

Mark  (Wernie,  251  seq.,  cf.  Wrede,  Paulus,  89)  to  John  (Wernie,  274, 
Wrede,  p.  96),  reflect  Paul’s  christological  speculations:  and  the  rest  of 
the  N.  T.  bears  equally  his  mark.  The  origin  of  this  high  Pauline  chris- 
tology  is  left  somewhat  obscure.  Wrede  and  Weinel  are,  on  the  whole, 
^inclined  to  say  that  Paul  had  as  a Jew  believed  in  a transcendent  Mes- 
^siah,  such  as  is  pictured  in  the  Similitudes  of  Enoch,  say,  and  had  only, 
on  conversion,  to  accept  Jesus  as  Messiah  to  have  an  exalted  christology 
ready  at  hand.  But  if  this  doctrine  of  a transcendent  Messiah  was 
“ in  the  air,”  why  was  it  left  to  Paul  to  invent  a transcendent  chris- 
tology for  the  church  ? And  if  it  was  “ in  the  air  ” why  need  it  be  sup- 
posed to  be  derived  from  the  later  Apocalypses?  Why  might  not  the 
Apocalypses  and  Paul  alike  draw  from,  say,  Daniel  713,14  ? 
may  it  not  have  been  shared  by  Jesus  Himself?  It  scarcely  seems 
logical  to  refer  all  traces  of  a transcendent  christology  in  the  N.  T. 
to  Paul;  and  then  to  refer  Paul’s  doctrine  to  a generally  active  cause. 
The  single  solid  result  of  the  movement  is,  thus,  the  general  recognition 
that  the  christology  of  the  N.  T.  at  large  is  “ transcendent.” 

2Cf.  Knowling,  The  Testimony  of  St.  Paul  to  Christ,  pp.  44,  45; 
“The  Twelve  and  St.  Paul  differed,  no  doubt,  in  many  ways;  but 
there  is  no  trace  that  the  former  opposed  the  Gentile  Apostle  in  the 
estimate  which  he  formed  of  the  person  of  Christ  and  of  His  relation- 
ship to  the  Father.”  “ If  the  deification  of  Christ  was  due  to  St.  Paul, 
how  is  it  that  we  do  not  hear  of  any  such  opposition,  of  any  such  viola- 
tion of  Jewish  feeling  and  belief?” 


222  The  Designations  of  Oiir  Lord 

IS  distinctly  to  be  borne  in  mind  that  these  Epistles  were 
written  not  merely  in  the  lifetime  of  the  original  apostles 
of  Christ,  but  also  in  full  view  of  their  teaching,  and  with 
an  express  claim  to  harmony  with  it.  Their  testimony 
is  accordingly  not  to  Paul’s  distinctive  doctrine  with 
regard  to  the  person  of  Jesus,  but  to  the  common  doc- 
trine of  the  Churches  of  the  first  age,  when  the  Churches 
included  in  their  membership  the  original  followers  of 
Jesus.®  They,  therefore,  do  not  present  us  a different 
usage  from  that  reflected  in  Acts  and  the  Synoptic  Gos- 
pels, but  the  same  usage  from  a different  point  of  sight. 
'"As  didactic  writings  addressed  by  a Christian  leader  to 
"Christian  readers  they  enable  us  to  observe,  as  the  his- 
torical books  do  not,  how  Christians  of  the  sixth  and 
seventh  decades  of  the  first  century  were  accustomed  to 
speak  of  the  Lord  to  one  another;  and  accordingly 
what  their  thought  of  Jesus  was  as  they  sought  to 
quicken  in  themselves  Christian  faith  and  hope  and 
to  bring  their  lives  into  conformity  with  their  profes- 
sions. Not  merely  in  point  of  date,  therefore,  but  also 
in  point  of  intimacy  of  revelation,  the  Epistles  of  Paul 
present  to  us  the  most  direct  and  determining  evidence 
of  the  conception  of  Jesus  prevalent  in  the  primitive 
Church. 

It  belongs  to  their  character  as  didactic  rather  than 
narrative  writings,  for  example,  that  in  Paul’s  Epistles 
the  designation  of  our  Lord  by  the  sim- 
Constant  i Jesus  ’ falls  Strikingly  into  the  back- 

ground,  while  the  designation  ot  idim 

® Cf.  Stanton,  The  Jevjtsh  and  Christian  Messiah,  p.  156-7. 

*Cf.  Robinson  on  Eph  (p.  23)  : “To  St.  Paul,  Jesus  was  preemi- 
nently ‘ the  Christ.’  Very  rarely  does  he  use  the  name  ‘ Jesus  ’ without 
linking  it  with  the  name  or  the  title  ‘ Christ.’  ” Cf.  p.  107. 


The  Corroboration  of  Paul  223 

as  ‘ Lord  ’ comes  strikingly  forward.®  This  phenome- 
non we  already  observed  in  Acts;  it  is  much  more 
marked  in  Paul.  The  simple  ‘ Jesus  ’ occurs  in  all  these 
Epistles  only  some  seventeen  times,  while  the  simple 
‘Lord’  occurs  some  144  or  146  times,  to  which  may 
be  added  95  to  97  more  instances  of  the  use  of  ‘ Lord  ’ 
in  conjunction  with  the  proper  name.®  And  this  con- 
stant application  of  the  term  ‘ Lord  ’ to  Jesus  must  not 
be  imagined  merely  a formal  mark  of  respect.’'  It  is 
the  definite  ascription  to  Him  of  universal  absolute 
dominion  not  only  over  men,  but  over  the  whole  uni- 
verse of  created  beings  (Phil  2^S  Rom  10^^).* 

It  is,  of  course,  true  that  Paul  has  the  exalted  Jesus 
in  mind  in  thus  speaking  of  Him.  It  was  only  on  His 
Ground  exaltation  that  Jesus  entered  upon  His 

of  Jesus*  dominion.  But  it  by  no  means  follows 

Lordship  conceived  Jesus  to  have  acquired 

His  ‘ Lordship,’  in  the  sense  of  His  inherent  right  to 
reign,  by  His  exaltation.  On  the  contrary,  to  Paul  it  ^ 
was  the  ‘ Lord  of  Glory  ’ who  was  crucified  ( i Cor  2®) . 

® On  the  relation  of  ‘ Christ  ’ and  ‘ Lord  ’ in  Paul’s  usage  cL  Robin- 
son, Com.  on  Ephesians,  pp.  72-90. 

®The  statistics  of  Paul’s  employment  of  the  various  designations  of 
our  Lord  are  carefully  given  by  Paul  Feine,  Jesus  Christus  und  Paulus, 
1902,  pp.  21  seg.  The  text  he  uses  is  Nestle’s  ed.  3,  1901. 

Cf.  Knowling  op.  cit.,  pp.  39,  65,  etc.:  “No  criticism  has  sufficed 
to  do  away  with  the  peculiar  significance  of  this  title.”  . . . We 
must  “ frankly  admit  that  St.  Paul  had  very  far  overstepped  the  limits 
of  Christ’s  humanity  when  he  finds  in  Him  the  Lord  of  the  O.  T.” 

® It  was  a notion  of  Baur’s  {Der  Lehre  von  der  Dreieinigkeit,  i.  p.  85, 
iV.  T.  Theologie,  p.  193)  that  ‘Lord’  in  Paul  always  means  ‘Lord  of  the 
Church,’  through  whom  salvation  has  been  brought  to  men.  Not  only 
the  passages  cited,  but  many  others,  such  as  1 Cor  8®,  negative  this. 
Dr.  Sanday  (on  Rom  i^,  p.  10)  supposes  that  this  was  the  primary 
meaning  of  the  term:  “On  the  lips  of  Christians,  xopiog  denotes  the 
idea  of  ‘ sovereignty,’  primarily  over  themselves  as  the  society  of  be- 


224 


The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

That  Is  to  say,  even  in  the  days  of  His  flesh,  Jesus  was 
to  him  Intrinsically  “ the  Lord  to  whom  glory  belongs 
as  His  native  right.”®  That  Paul  usually  has  the  ex- 
alted Christ  In  mind  when  speaking  of  Him  as  Lord 
Is  only  thus  a portion  of  the  broader  fact  that,  writ- 
ing when  he  wrote,  and  as  he  wrote,  he  necessarily  had 
the  exalted  Christ  In  mind  In  the  generality  of  his 
speech  of  Him.  He  was  not  engaged  In  writing  a hls- 
^J:orIcal  retrospect  of  the  life  of  the  man  Jesus  on  earth, 
but  In  proclaiming  Jesus  as  the  all-sufficient  Saviour 
of  men.  That  he  recognized  that  this  Jesus  had  entered 
upon  the  actual  exercise  of  His  universal  dominion 
only  on  His  resurrection  and  ascension,  and  In  this 
sense  had  received  It  as  a reward  for  His  work  on 
earth  (Phil  2®,  Rom  14®)  merely  means  that,  no  less 
than  to  our  Lord  Himself,  the  earthly  manifestation 

lievers  (Col  iisseq.)^  but  also  over  all  creation  (Phil  Col 

jie.iT).”  “The  title,”  he  adds,  “was  given  to  our  Lord  even  in  His 
lifetime  (Jno  is^^),  but  without  a full  consciousness  of  its  signifi- 
cance: it  was  only  after  the  Resurrection  that  the  Apostles  took  it  to 
express  their  central  belief  (Phil  2^seq.).»»  These  remarks,  however, 
require  revision.  Though  the  term  “ does  not  in  itself  necessarily  in- 
volve divinity  ” and  “Jews  may  have  applied  it  to  their  Messiah  (Mk 
1236,37^  Pss  Sol  17^®)  without  meaning  that  He  was  God” — and  indeed 
His  followers  may  have  applied  it  to  Jesus  in  its  lower  connotation 
during  His  lifetime  and  afterwards, — ^yet  its  association  with  the 
‘ Lord  ’ of  the  Lxx.  gave  it  also  its  divine  implication  from  the  begin- 
ning, and  in  point  of  fact  it  is  so  employed  from  the  first. 

9 Cf.  T.  C.  Edwards  on  i Cor  2^ ; who  rightly  takes  the  genitive  as 
genitive  of  characteristic  quality,  and  explains:  “The  Lord  to  whom 
glory  belongs  as  His  native  right.  . . . Glory  is  the  peculiar  attri- 

bute of  Jehovah  among  all  the  gods  (Ps  29^).  The  expression  is  theo- 
logically important  because  it  implies  that  Jesus  was  Lord  of  Glory, 
that  is  Jehovah,  and  that  the  Lord  of  Glory  died  (cf.  Acts  3^®).” 
Passages  like  1 Cor  11^^,  “the  Lord’s  death,”  “the  body  and 

blood  of  the  Lord,”  are  quite  similar  in  import,  owing  to  the  exalted 
sense  of  the  term  ‘ Lord.’  Hence  Heinrici  speaks  of  “ the  paradox  ” in 
such  expressions.  Cf.  Heinrici-Mever.  ed.  1896,  pp.  3 53  and  363. 


The  Corroboration  of  Paul  225 

of  Jesus  was  to  Paul  an  estate  of  humiliation  upon  which 
the  glory  followed.^®  But  the  glory  which  thus  followed 
the  humiliation  was  to  Paul,  too,  a glory  which  be- 
longed of  right  to  Jesus,  to  whom  His  lowly  life  on 
earth,  notJHis  subsequent  exaltation,  was  a strange  ex- 
perience. ' Jt  was  one  who  was  rich,  he  tells  us,  who 
rm  Jesus  became  poor  that  we  might  through  His  poverty 
^become  rich  (2  Cor  8®)  ; it  was  one  who  was  in  the 
form  of  God  who  alyured  clinging  to  His  essential 
equality  with  God  and  made  Himself  of  no  reputation 
by  taking  the  form  of  a servant,  and  stooping  even  to 
the  death  of  the  cross  (Phil  When  Pajjl 

speaks  of  Jesus,  therefore,  as  ‘ Lord  ’ it  is  not  espe- 
cially of  His  exaltation  that  he  is  thinking,  but  rather 
“ the  whole  majesty  of  Christ  lies  in  this  predicate 
for  him,  and  the  recognition  that  Jesus  is  ‘ Lord’  ex- 
presses for  him  accordingly  the  essence  of  Christianity 


Cf.  on  this  Meyer  on  2 Cor  4^  (E.  T.  pp.  229-30)  : “ For  Christ 
in  the  state  of  His  exaltation  is  again,  as  He  was  before  His  incarna- 
ti^  (comp.  Jno  ly®),  fully  h fxop(pfi  dsod  and  Ua  Oeib  (Phil  2®), 
hence  in  His  glorified  corporeality  (Phil  321)  the  visible  image  of  the 
invisible  God.  ...  It  is  true  that  in  the  state  of  His  humiliation 
He  had  likewise  the  divine  do^a^  which  he  possessed  xard  Tzveopa 
dyiu}(Tuvrj<s  (Rom  i^),  which  also,  as  bearer  of  the  divine  grace  and 
truth  (Jno  1^^),  and  through  His  miracles  (Jno  2II),  He  made  known 
^(Jno  14®)  ; but  its  working  and  revelation  were  limited  by  His  humili- 
^ ation  to  man’s  estate,  and  He  had  divested  Himself  of  the  divine  appear- 
^ance  (Phil  2'^®®'!-)  till  in  the  end,  furnished  through  His  resurrection 
with  the  mighty  attestation  of  His  divine  Sonship  (Rom  i^),  He  en- 
tered, through  His  elevation  to  the  right  hand  of  God,  into  the  full 
communion  of  the  glory  of  the  Father,  in  which  He  is  now  the  God- 
man,  the  very  image  and  reflection  of  God,  and  will  one  day  come  to 
execute  judgment  and  establish  the  Kingdom.”  “The  whole  acknowl- 
edgment of  the  heavenly  xupcorrj?  of  Jesus  as  the  <r6v0povo<^  of 
(^jGod,”  says  Meyer  justly  on  Rom  10^,  “ is  conditioned  by  the  acknowl- 
edgment of  His  previous  descent  from  heaven,  the  incarnation  of  the 
Son  of  God,  83,  Gal  4^,  Phil  2^,  et  air 
The  phrase  is  Meyer’s,  on  2 Cor  4®. 


226  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

(Rom  10®,  2 Cor  4^  i Cor  I2^  Phil  2^^).  The  proc- 
lamation of  the  Gospel  is  summed  up  for  him  therefore 
in  this  formula  (2  Cor  4^);  the  confession  of  Jesus 
as  Lord  is  salvation  (Rom  10®),  and  it  is  the  mark  of 
a Christian  that  he  serves  the  Lord  Christ  (Col  3^^)  ; 
for  no  one  can  say  that  Jesus  is  Lord  except  in  the  Holy 
Spirit  (i  Cor  12^). 

Obviously  the  significance  of  the  title  ‘ Lord  ’ as 
applied  to  Jesus  by  Paul  is  not  uninfluenced  by  its  con- 
‘Lord’  a stant  employment  of  God  in  the  Greek 
Proper  Name  Old  Testament,  and  especially  in  those 
of  Jesus  Qij  Testament  passages  which  Paul  ap- 
J plies  to  Jesus,  in  which  ‘ Lord  ’ is  the  divine  name 
(e.  g.,  2 Thess  i®,  i Cor  io®’“®,  2 Cor  3^^ 

Rom  10^^  Eph  6^  2 Tim  2^®  4^^:  Isaiah  45“^  is  cited 
vXwith  reference  to  God  in  Rom  I4^\  and  with  reference 
to  Jesus  in  Phil  2^®)d^  Under  the  influence  of  these 
passages  the  title  ‘ Lord  ’ becomes  in  Paul’s  hands  almost 
a proper  name,  the  specific  designation  for  Jesus  con- 
ceived as  a divine  person  in  distinction  from  God  the 
Father.  It  is  therefore  employed  of  Jesus  not  merely 
constantly  but  almost  exclusively.  It  is  doubtful 
whether  it  is  ever  once  employed  of  God  the  Father, 
outside  of  a few  citations  from  the  Old  Testament: 
and  in  any  case  such  employment  of  it  is  very  excep- 

12  Cf.  Paul  Feine,  Jesus  Christus  und  Paulus,  p.  38:  “6  xvpio? 
became  to  him  ever  more  the  heavenly  Jesus,  to  whom  he  belonged 
with  all  his  thoughts  and  activities.  Jesus  was  to  the  Apostle  the  em- 
bodiment of  God.  This  follows  from  the  peculiarity  which  meets  us 
also  in  Acts  22s,  i p 3^5,  that  with  Paul  xopto<s  in  O.  T. 

citations  is  often  applied  to  Jesus:  2 Thess  i®,  1 Cor  2 Cor  1 

Cor  10®,  2 Cor  31®,  Rom  Eph  6^,  2 Tim  2^^  4^^.  In  Rom  14I1, 
Is  4523  is  applied  to  God : in  Phil  2^^  seq.  to  Christ.” 


The  Corroboration  of  Paul  227 

tional.  It  is  accordingly  in  point  of  fact  the  determinate 
title  for  Jesus  as  distinguished  from  God  the  Fatherd* 
x\s  such  ‘ the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  ’ is  coupled  with  ‘ God 
our  Father  ’ (or  ‘ the  Father  ’)  as  the  co-source  of  that 
grace  and  peace  which  Paul  is  accustomed  to  invoke 
on  his  readers  in  the  addresses  to  his  Epistles  ( i Thess 
i\  2 Thess  T’2^  I Cor  T,  2 Cor  T,  Gal  T,  Rom  T,  Eph 
T,  Phil  T,  I Tim  T,  2 Tim  T,  Titus  cf.  Eph  i 
Thess  2 Thess  i^“).  And  throughout  the  Epistles 
Jesus  as  ‘ the  Lord  ’ and  the  Father  as  ‘ God  ’ are  set  over 
against  each  other  as  distinct  and  yet  cpnigined  objects 
of  the  reverence  of  Christians,  and  distinct  and  yet  con- 
joined sources  of  the  blessings  of  which  Christians  are 
the  recipients. 

13  Cf.  David  Somerville,  St.  PauVs  Conception  of  Christ,  1897,  pp. 
124  seq.:  “ The  term  ‘ Lord  ’ occurs  hundreds  of  times  in  the  Epistles, 
and  expresses  the  conviction  of  the  supremacy  of  Christ  which  the 
Apostle  shared  with  the  entire  primitive  Church.  In  the  nomenclature 
of  the  Apostle  the  Father  is  6 Christ  is  xvpio<;.  The  term 

‘Lord,’  except  when  he  quotes  from  the  O.  T.  (in  which  case  xupio<s 

is  used  of  God,  being  the  lxx.  translation),  uniformly  describes  Christ 
in  Paul’s  Epistles.  That  he  regards  it  as  Christ’s  proper  designation 
we  see  from  i Cor  8^,6^  also  from  Eph  4^,  i Cor  Wherever  ‘ Lord  ’ 
occurs  we  are  to  understand  him  as  referring  to  Christ,  i Cor  419  3^ 
Rom  14^,  which  Weiss  adduces  as  exceptions,  are  so  only  in  ap- 
pearance.” Cf.  also  Sven  Herner,  Die  Annvendung  des  Wortes  xbpto<s 
im  N.  T.,  p.  22,  speaking  of  the  Ep.  to  the  Romans,  he  says:  “If  we 
direct  our  attention  here  to  the  verses  where  xupio<;  represents  God, 

we  find  that  they  are  all  citations  from  the  O.  T.:  14II  form 

no  exception  to  this  rule.  Outside  the  O.  T.  citations,  on  the  other  hand, 
xupto(;  in  Romans  means  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  no  certain  ex- 
ception to  this  rule  occurs.  . . . These  citations  are  not  always, 
however,  able  to  alter  the  usage  of  Paul.  We  not  only  have  an  in- 
V stance  in  which  in  Romans — as  in  the  Gospels  and  Acts — a passage  is 
applied  to  the  Lord  Christ  in  which  in  the  O.  T.  the  Lord  Jehovah  is 
%poken  of  (1012);  but  also  two  passages  (iji-^)  in  which  an  O.  T. 
")*Lord  God’  is  altered  to  (iiS)  ‘God.’” 


228 


The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

No  doubt  by  this  elevation  of  Jesus  as  ‘ Lord  ’ to  the 
side  of  God^^  certain  peculiarities  of  expression  are  pro- 
Jesus  Embraced  duced  which  are  on  a surface  view  suffi- 
in  the  One  ciently  puzzling.  Thus,  for  example, 
Godhead  declaring  the  nonentity  of  the  ob- 

jects of  heathen  worship,  Paul  asserts  roundly  that 
“ none  is  God  except  One,”  and  proceeds  to  explicate 
this  assertion  by  remarking  that,  although  there  may 
exist  so-called  gods  whether  in  heaven  or  earth,  as  there 
are — obviously  among  the  heathen — many  gods  and 
many  lords,  “ yet  to  us  there  is  one  God,  namely,  the 
^ Father,  from  whom  are  all  things  and  we  unto  Him  ” 
( I Cor  8^'®) . But  he  does  not  stop  there,  but  adds  at 
^once,  “ And  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  through  whom  are 
all  things  and  we  through  Him  ” ( i Cor  8®) . This 
addition  might  seem  to  a superficial  reading  to  stultify 
his  whole  monotheistic  argument:  “There  is  no  God 
but  one;  . . . for  to  us  there  is  one  God  . 

and  one  Lord.”  There  is  but  one  possible  solution. 
Obviously  the  one  God  whom  Christians  worship  is 
conceived  as,  in  some  way  not  fully  explained,  without 
prejudice  to  .His  unl^  subsistent  Jn  both  the  ‘ one 
God,’  viz.,  the  Father  and  the  ‘ one  Lord,’  viz.,  Jesus 
Christ.  Otherwise  there  would  be  a flat  contradiction 

Cf.  David  Somerville,  St.  Paul’s  Conception  of  Christ,  p.  295  seq., 
where  the  use  of  the  term  xopio<s  in  the  LXX.  is  examined,  and  it  is 
added  that  it  was  as  “ accustomed  to  this  usage  that  Paul  confines  the 
terra  xopio<s  to  Christ  and  reserves  6s6<;  for  the  Father,  God” — 
and  “ this  plainly  points  to  the  belief  that  He  whom  he  called  Lord 
was  in  some  sense  God  as  well  as  He  who  was  termed  (p. 

296).  Cf.  p.  143:  “But  the  fact  that  he  habitually  applies  to  Christ 
the  term  ‘ Lord  ’ (xupio^'J  a term  that  in  the  LXX.  is  practically 
equivalent  to  God  ( deo^  ) and  is  the  rendering  of  the  most  solemn 
name  of  Jehovah  in  the  O.  T.,  shows  that  in  his  regard  He  was  enti- 
tled to  the  worship  and  obedience  that  are  due  to  God.” 


The  Corroboration  of  Paid  229 

between  the  emphatic  assertion  that  “ none  is  God  but 
one  ” and  the  proof  of  this  assertion  offered  In  the 
explanation  that  to  Christians  there  is  but  “ one  God, 
viz.,  the  Father  ” and  “ one  Lord,  viz.,  Jesus  Christ.” 
And  it  is  clear  that  Paul  can  count  upon  his  readers 
understanding  that  the  “ one  Lord,  Jesus  Christ  ” bears 
such  a relation  to  the  “one  God,  the  Father”  that 
these  two  may  together  be  subsumed  under  the  category 
^ ^of  the  one  God  who  alone  exists.  We  shall  not  say  that 
there  are  the  beginnings  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
here.  It  seems  truer  to  say  that  there  Is  the  clear  pre- 
supposition of  some  such  doctrine  as  that  of  the  Trinity 
here.^® 

There  is  lacking,  indeed,  only  the  conjunction  of 
“the  Spirit”  with  “God  the  Father”  and  “Jesus  the 
. . Lord  ” to  compel  us  to  perceive  that 

Background  underlying  Paul’s  mode  of  speech  con- 
cerning God  there  is  a clearly  conceived 
and  firmly  held  conviction  that  these  three  together  con- 
stitute the  one  God  of  Christian  worship.  And  other 
passages  enough  supply  this  lack.  For  example,  later 
on  In  this  sam.e  Epistle  the  Apostle,  speaking  of  those 
gifts  of  the  Spirit  with  which  the  Apostolic  Church  was 
blessed,  remarks  in  the  most  natural  way  in  the  world: 
“ Now  there  are  diversities  of  gifts  but  the  same  Spirit. 

Dr.  Sanday,  in  his  otherwise  excellent  note  on  Rora  i^,  neglects  to 
consider  the  point  here  made,  and  speaks  as  if  we  were  observing  in 
these  passages  the  formation  of  a christology  and  of  a doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  instead  of  the  presupposition  of  these  doctrines.  He  says: 
“ The  assignment  of  the  respective  titles  of  ‘ Father  ’ and  ‘ Lord  ’ rep- 
resents the  first  beginnings  of  christological  speculation.  It  is  stated 
in  precise  terms  and  with  a corresponding  assignment  of  appropriate 
prepositions  in  i Cor  8®.  Not  only  does  the  juxtaposition  of  ‘ Father  * 
and  ‘Lord’  mark  a stage  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ;  it 
also  marks  an  important  stage  in  the  history  of  the  doctrine  of  the 


230  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

And  there  are  diversities  of  ministrations,  and  the  same 
Lord.  And  there  are  diversities  of  workings,  but  the 
same  God”  (i  Cor  12^®).  “Now  I beseech  you, 
brethren,”  he  says  again  towards  the  end  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans,  “ by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  by  the 
love  of  the  Spirit,  that  ye  strive  together  with  me  in 
your  prayers  to  God  for  me”  (Rom  15^^).  “There 
is  one  body  and  one  Spirit,  even  as  also  ye  were  called 
in  one  hope  of  your  calling,”  says  he  again,  in  a later 
Epistle  (Eph  “one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  bap- 

tism, one  God  and  Father  of  all,  who  is  over  all,  and 
through  all,  and  in  all.”  Or,  perhaps,  most  explicitly  of 
all,  in  those  closing  words  of  the  Second  Epistle  to  the 
Corinthians  which  have  become  the  established  form  of 
benediction  in  the  Churches:  “The  grace  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  and  the  love  of  God,  and  the  communion 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  be  with  you  all”  (2  Cor  13^^). 
From  passages  like  these  it  is  perfectly  clear  that  the 
Christian  doctrine  of  God  as  apprehended  by  Paul,  and 
as  currently  implied  in  his  natural  modes  of  speech  con- 
cerning Him,  as  he  wrote  in  simplicity  of  heart  and  with 
no  misgivings  as  to  the  understanding  of  his  language  by 
the  Christian  readers  whom  he  addressed,  embraced, 
in  conjunction  with  the  utmost  stress  upon  the  unity 

Trinity.  It  is  already  found  some  six  years  before  the  composition  of 
Ep.  to  Romans  at  the  time  when  St.  Paul  wrote  his  earliest  extant 
Epistle  (i  Thess  cf.  2 Thess  i^).  This  shows  that  even  at  that 
date  (A.  D.  52)  the  definition  of  the  doctrine  had  begun.  It  is  well 
also  to  remember  that  although  in  this  particular  verse  of  Ep.  to  Ro- 
mans the  form  in  which  it  appears  is  incomplete,  the  triple  formula 
concludes  an  Epistle  written  a few  months  earlier  (2  Cor  13^^).  There 
is  nothing  more  wonderful  in  the  history  of  human  thought  than  the 
silent  and  imperceptible  way  in  which  this  doctrine,  to  us  so  difficult, 
took  its  place  without  struggle  and  without  controversy  among  accepted 
Christian  truths.”  Dr.  Sanday  neglects  to  note  that  the  triple  formula 
is  found  in  Romans  as  well  as  2 Cor.,  viz., 


The  Corroboration  of  Paid 


231 


of  God,  the  recognition  at  the  same  time  of  distinctions 
'jikin  the  Divine  Being  by  virtue  of  which  the  Lord  Jesus 
"^j^hrist  and  the  Holy  Spirit  were  esteemed  God  along 
^>/with  the  Father. 

But  what  we  require  to  note  particularly  at  this 
point  is  that  to  Paul,  the  divine  name — perhaps  we 
‘ Lord  ’ the  permitted  to  say,  “ the  Trini- 

Trinitarian  tarian  name  ” — of  Jesus  is  apparently 
Name  of  Jesus  < Lord.’  God,  the  Lord,  the  Spirit, 
— this  is  his  triad,  and  when  he  speaks  of  Jesus  as 
‘ Lord  ’ it  must  be  supposed  that  this  triad  is  in  his 
mind.  In  other  words,  ‘ Lord  ’ to  him  is  not  a general 
term  of  respect  which  he  naturally  applies  to  Jesus  be- 
cause he  recognized  Jesus  as  supreme,  and  was  glad 
to  acknowledge  Him  as  his  Master  (Eph  6^  Col  4^), 
or  even  in  the  great  words  of  Col  2^^  as  the  ‘ Head  ’ 
of  the  body  which  is  His  Church  (cf.  Eph  4^^).  It 
is  to  him  the  specific  title  of  divinity  by  which  he  indi- 
cates to  himself  the  relation  in  which  Jesus  stands  to 
Deity.  Jesus  is  not  ‘ Lord  ’ to  him  because  He  has 
been  given  dominion  over  all  creation;  He  has  been 
given  this  universal  dominion  because  he  is  ‘ Lord,’ 
who  with  the  Father  and  the  Spirit  is  to  be  served  and 
worshipped,  and  from  whom  all  that  the  Christian  longs 
for  is  to  be  expected.  In  His  own  nature  the  ‘ Lord 
of  glory’  (i  Cor  2^),  He  has  died  and  lived  again 
that  He  might  enter  upon  His  dominion  as  ‘ Lord  ’ of 
both  the  dead  and  the  living  (Rom  14^),  and  being 
thus  ‘ Lord  of  all  ’ (Rom  10^^)  might  be  rich  unto  all 
that  call  upon  Him  and  so  fulfill  the  saying  that  who- 
soever “ shall  call  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  ” shall 
be  saved  (Rom  10^^).  He  does  not  become  ‘Lord,’ 
but  only  comes  to  His  rights  as  ‘ Lord,’  by  and  through 


232  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

His  resurrection  and  ascension,  which  are  the  culminat- 
ing and  completing  acts  of  His  saving  work.  He  Is 
‘ Lord  ’ because  He  Is  In  His  own  person  the  Jehovah 
who  was  to  visit  His  people  and  save  them  from  their 
sins.^® 

No  doubt  a different  representation  is  sometimes 
given.  We  are  even  told  that  there  Is  In  these  very 

Appearance  passages  a distinction  drawn  between 

of  ‘ God  ’ and  ‘ the  Lord,’  by  which  the 

Subordination  status  of  ‘ the  Lord  ’ Is  made  definitely 
inferior  to  that  of  ‘ God,’  to  whom  He  Is  subject  and 
whose  will  He  executes.  It  Is  God  the  Father  who  is 
the  source  and  end  of  all  things;  the  ‘Lord  Jesus 
Christ  ’ Is  the  mediator  through  whom  He  works  ( i 
Cor  8®,  cf.  I Tim  2^  and  such  passages — dcd  with  the 
genitive — as  the  following,  Rom  2^®  3^^  ^1,11,17,21^ 

Cf.  Paul  Feine,  Jesus  Christus  und  Paulus,  1902,  pp.  165  seq.: 
“ If  Jesus  undertook  to  perform  the  redemptive  acts  which  were  in  the 
O.  T.  hoped  for  from  God’s  action,  so  in  Paul,  in  correspondence  with 
the  advance  of  the  redemptive  work  which  lay  in  Christ’s  death  and 
resurrection,  there  emerges  even  more  strongly  the  idea  of  the  divine 
activity  of  Christ.  Paul  applies  to  Christ  words  which  in  the  O.  T. 
refer  to  God, — 2 Thess  ^2  j Cor  i^i  2^®  10^2^  2 Cor  8^^ 

Rom  iqI®,  Phil  2i®®®<i-,  Eph  4P.  i Thess  4®  is  doubtful.  One  of 
the  most  commonly  employed  designations  of  Christ  on  the  part  of  the 
Apostle  is  6 xupco^^  the  name  in  which  the  lxx.  prevailingly  rep- 
resents the  unpronounced  nin\  It  is  not  merely  in  the  letters  to 
the  Thessalonians  uncertain  in  many  passages  whether  God  or  Christ 
is  intended  by  xupto^i  even  in  1 Cor  we  still  meet  with  a multi- 
form vacillation  in  the  reference  of  xopto<^  to  Christ  and  to  God. 
Divine  honors  are  given  to  Christ  in  2 Thess  i^seq.^  Rom  Phil 

2^®.  In  2 Tim  4^®  a doxology  such  as  elsewhere  is  given  to  God  is 
given  to  Him.  One  of  the  designations  of  Christians  is  ‘those  who 
call  upon  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ’  (i  Cor  similarly 
Rom  ic>i2seq.^  2 Tim  222).^ljChrist,  after  He  has  ascended  above  all 
^the  heavens  (Eph  4^®),  sits  at  the  right  hand  of  God  as  sharer  in  the 
divine  disposition  of  grace  to  believers  (Rom  8^4  seq.  and  has  the 


233 


The  Corroboration  of  Paul 

I Th  5^  Tit  3®) . The  term  ‘ Lord  ’ as  applied  to  Jesus, 
therefore,  although  ascribing  a certain  divinity  to  Him, 
appears  to  fall  short  of  attributing  deity  to  Him  in 
its  full  sense.  It  Is  the  appropriate  designation  of  a 
sort  of  secondary  divinity,  a middle  being  standing  In 
some  sense  between  man  and  God.  Accordingly  we 
read  that  while  “ the  head  of  every  man  Is  Christ,” 
“the  head  of  Christ  Is  God”  (i  Cor  ii^),  and  that 
“ if  we  are  Christ’s,”  so  “ Christ  Is  God’s  ” ( i Cor  3^^) . 
The  whole  redemptive  work  of  Christ  Is  represented  as 
the  working  of  God  through  Christ,  as  terminating  ul- 
timately on  God,  and  as  redounding  specifically  to  His 
glory  (Rom  5^^  8^  2 Cor  5^^  Eph  16.12,14.19  ^19^ 
Col  etc.).  When,  then,  the  redemptive  work  Is 
completed  the  ‘ Lordship  ’ which  has  been  conferred 
upon  Christ  ceases  also,  so  that  His  very  sovereignty 
appears  as  a derived  sovereignty  delegated  for  a pur- 
pose (i  Cor  15^^’^*).  God  is  appropriately  spoken  of 
therefore  distinctly  as  the  “ God  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ”  (Eph  cf.  Rom  15^  2 Cor  ii^\  Eph 

power  to  subject  all  things  to  Himself  (Phil  321).  Every  knee  shall 
bow  to  Him  in  the  realms  of  the  heavenly  and  the  earthly  and  the 
underearthly  (Phil  2^^).  He  is  Lord  over  every  lordship  and  power 
and  might  and  dominion  and  every  name  that  is  named  (Eph  i20seq.^ 
Col  2^0).  The  O.  T.  day  of  the  Lord,  the  day  of  Judgment,  has  be- 
come His  day  (i  Thess  52,  2 Thess  32,  i Cor  i^seq.).  Christ  is  to 
carry  out  the  world-judgment  when  He  appears  accompanied  by  His 
holy  angels  (1  Thess  2 Thess  All  must  appear  before  His 

throne  (2  Cor  510).  . . . The  Apostle  passes  back  and  forth  with 

references  to  God  and  Christ.  Is  452s,  which  in  accord  with  its  original 
meaning  is  referred  to  God  in  Rom  14^^,  is  applied  to  Christ  in  Phil 
2^0.  In  Rom  I4®-12  the  Apostle  begins  with  the  words  ‘ Who  eats,  eats 
to  the  Lord,  for  he  gives  thanks  to  God,*  etc.  (cf.  i Cor  lo^^).  Then 
comes  the  beautiful  declaration  that  we  belong  to  the  Lord  in  life  and 
death;  on  which,  however,  he  grounds  the  warning  to  judges  that  we 
must  all  stand  before  the  judgment  seat  of  God,** 


234  The  Designations  of  Oiir  Lord 

i^),  a locution  which,  while  intimating  that  the  relation 
subsisting  between  Him  and  Jesus  is  peculiarly  close, 
yet  equally  clearly  intimates  that  it  is  not  a relation  of 
equality  but  of  the  nature  of  divine  master  and  subject 
servantd'^ 

That  a problem  is  raised  by  the  passages  of  this  class 
is  obvious  enough.  But  it  is  equally  obvious  that  this 
problem  cannot  be  solved  by  the  attribu- 
^ certain  secondary  divinity  to 
Christ,  and  much  less  by  supposing  that 
He  has  merely  a sort  of  divinity  communicated  to  Him 
quoad  nos,  while  in  His  essential  nature  only  a creature. 
The  strict  and  strongly  asseverated  monotheism  of  Paul 
forbids  the  former  assumption:  his  definite  ascription 
to  Jesus  of  an  eternal  divine  form  of  existence  ante- 
cedent to  His  earthly  career  excludes  the  latter.  Noth- 
ing could  exceed  the  clearness  and  emphasis  of  Paul’s 

Cf.  for  statement  of  this  point  of  view  Beyschlag  Dig  Christologie 
des  N.  T.,  1866,  pp.  203  seq.:  “Whatever  there  may  be  great  and 
unique  lying  in  the  el?  xvpio^^  it  is  undeniable  that  Paul  purposely 
does  not  apply  the  name  0s6<$  to  Christ,  but  rather  most  distinctly  dis- 
tinguishes the  el?  xbpioq  from  the  el?  ^eo?  besides  whom  there  is 
no  other.  The  same  conception  and  manner  of  expression  runs  excep- 
tionlessly  and  in  numerous  instances  throughout  the  Pauline  Epistles: 
everywhere  ‘ God  ’=the  Father,  our  Father,  the  Father  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  and  everywhere  the  ‘Father’  and  the  Father  only»=>God, 
our  God,  the  ‘God  of  Jesus  Christ’  (Eph  i^'^)  : everywhere  in  a word 
the  conception  of  ‘God’  and  ‘Father’  stand  together,  while  the  ‘Son’ 
or  the  ‘Lord’  is  equally  constantly  distinguished  from  the  ‘Father.’” 
How  overstated  this  is  may  be  observed  by  comparing  it  with  the  text. 
Cf.  the  long  argument  to  the  same  effect  in  Richard  Schmidt’s  Die 
paulinische  Christologie,  etc.,  1870,  pp.  148  seq.;  and  the  brief  but 
pointed  statement  of  Paul  Feine,  Jesus  Christas  und  Paulas,  1902,  pp. 
168,  169;  also  David  Somerville,  St.  Paul’s  Conception  of  Christ,  etc., 
1897,  pp.  140,  141. 


The  Corrohoratiofi  of  Paul  235 

monotheism.  “ None  Is  God/’  says  he,  “ but  one 
(i  Cor  8^)  ; and  he  says  it,  as  we  have  seen,  In  Im- 
mediate connection  with  his  re^cognltlon  of  ‘ one  God, 
the  Father”  and  “ one  Lord,  Jesus  Christ”  (cf.  Rom 
3^^  i6“^  Gal  3^^  Eph  4^  i Tim  2®).  How,  then, 
could  he  mean  to  set  by  the  side  of  this  “ one  God  the 
Father  ” the  “ one  Lord  Jesus  Christ  ” as  a second, 
although  somewhat  Inferior,  God?^®  And  nothing 
could  exceed  the  clearness  and  emphasis  with  which 
Paul  represents  Jesus’  divine  majesty  not  as  an  attain- 
ment but  as  an  aboriginal  possession.  He  does  not 
'say  that  Jesus  Christ  became  rich  that  by  His  riches 
we  might  be  enriched,  as  he  must  have  said  If  he  had 
conceived  of  Jesus  as  a man  to  whom  divine  powers 
and  dignity  were  communicated  that  He  might  save 
us.  What  he  says  Is  that  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  was 
rich,  and  became  poor  only  for  our  sakes,  that 
“ through  His  poverty  we  might  become  rich  ” (2  Cor 
8®).  That  Is  to  say,  that,  as  he  expresses  It  In  another 
place.  It  was  to  make  no  account  of  Himself  for  Him 
to  take  the  “ form  of  a servant”  (Phil  2^).  Nor  does 
he  leave  us  In  doubt  as  to  the  quality  of  the  riches  He 
left  when  He  thus  made  Himself  of  no  reputation  by 
taking  “ the  form  of  a servant.”  No  heavenly  hu- 

18  “ No  [Being]  is  God  except  One  [Being],”  Evans  in  loc.;  cf. 
Edwards  in  loc.:  “There  is  but  one  God  and  the  Christians’  God  is 
that  One.” 

i®The  fallacy  of  writers  like  Beyschlag,  Christologie  d.  N.  T.,  1866, 
consists  in  treating  the  phrase  “to  us  there  is  one  God  the  Father” 
as  taking  up  and  repeating  the  “ There  is  no  God  but  One,”  and  the 
phrase  “ and  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ  ” as  a kind  of  afterthought  added 
to  it  (pp.  203-4).  truth  it  is  the  double  clause:  “There  is  one  God 
the  Father  . . . and  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ  for  us,”  which  takes 
up  and  develops  the  phrase,  “ None  is  God  but  One.” 


236  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

manity  suffices  here:  not  even  angelic  grandeur:^®  It 
was  “ in  the  form  of  God  ” that  He  was  by  nature 
{uTidp-gcov)  : it  was  “equality  with  God ’’which  He  did 
not  graspingly  cling  to.  And  to  be  “ in  the  form  of 
God  ” means  nothing  less  than  to  have  and  hold  in 
possession  all  those  characterizing  attributes  which 
make  God  God:  having  which  He  could  not  but  be 
equal  with  God,  because  He  was  just  God.  No  wonder 
then  that  Paul  tells  us  that  though  He  was  crucified 
'by  man  yet  was  He  ‘the  Lord  of  glory’  (i  Cor  2®), 
that  in  Him  dwelt  “ all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead 
bodily”  (Col  2^),  that  Israelite  as  He  was  “ according 
to  the  flesh  ” He  was  something  much  more  than 
what  He  was  according  to  the  flesh — nothing  less  in- 
deed than  “ God  over  all,  blessed  forever  ” (Rom  9^). 

He  certainly  does  not  mean  then  to  contrast  Jesus 
as  ‘ Lord  ’ with  God  the  Father  as  an  inferior  God 
or  as  possessing  a merely  delegated 

Implication  o£  indeed,  does  the  term 

Lord  lend  itself  readily  to  such  a 
contrast.  On  the  pages  of  Paul’s  Bible — the  Greek 
version  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures — ^it  stood  side  by  side 
with  ‘ God  ’ as  the  most  personal  and  intimate  name 

20  Richard  Schmidt,  Die  paulinische  Christologie,  1870,  pp.  148 
seq.,  represents  it  as  difficult  to  fix  on  a formula  by  which  to  express 
Paul’s  conception  of  what  the  preexistent  Christ  was.  We  may  at  first 
sight  think  that  to  suppose  he  conceived  the  antemundane  Christ  as 
man  will  best  meet  his  references:  but  that  will  soon  appear  inade- 
quate. Nor  can  we  satisfy  ourselves  that  he  thought  of  Him  as  an 
angel.  Nor  indeed  that  he  conceived  Him  after  the  fashion  of  later 
Trinitarianism  as  of  purely  intro-divine  relations.  It  is  unimportant 
whether  he  calls  Christ  ‘God’  as,  e.g.  in  Rom  9®,  or  not:  for  even  if 
he  applies  the  name  to  Him  the  question  would  still  remain  open 
whether  he  means  by  it  what  we  should  naturally  express  by  it.  This 
seems,  however,  in  the  face  of  Paul’s  repeated  attribution  to  Jesus  of 
full  deity  in  a great  variety  of  modes  of  expression,  very  hypercritical. 


237 


The  Corroboration  of  Paul 

of  Deity:  and  thence  he  took  It  as  we  have  seen  and 
applied  It  to  Jesus.  And  If  It  thus  could  not  have  been 
lower  In  Its  connotation  to  him  than  ‘ Jehovah  ’ Itself, 
It  was  charged  likewise  to  the  apprehension  of  his 
Gentile  readers  with  suggestions  In  no  way  Inferior  to 
those  of  ‘God’  Itself.^^  For  him  to  say  ‘Lord’  of 
Jesus  as  His  most  appropriate  title  was  therefore  to 
say  and  to  be  understood  as  saying  all  that  he  could 
say  by  the  designation  of  ‘ God  ’ Itself.  And  If  never- 
theless there  was  to  him  and  to  his  readers  but  one 
God,  then  there  Is  nothing  for  It  but  that  we  should 
recognize  that  for  Paul  and  his  readers  two  might  be 
God  and  yet  there  be  but  one  God;  and  that  Is  as  much 
as  to  say  that  their  thinking  of  God  was  already  ruled 
by  a Trinitarian  consciousness. 

As  for  the  expressions  In  which,  despite  his  clear 
Intimation  of  the  proper  deity  of  Jesus,  he  yet  speaks 
of  Him  as  in  some  sense  Inferior  or. 
Subordination  more  precise,  subordinate,  to  God 

the  Father,  it  is  quite  clear  that  they 
must  find  their  explanation  In  Paul’s  Intimation  of  the 
humiliation  to  which  this  divine  Person  subjected  Him- 
self for  the  purposes  of  redemption.  When  He  who 
was  rich  became  poor;  when  He  who  was  and  ever 
remains  “ In  the  form  of  God  ” made  Himself  of  no 
reputation  “ by  taking  the  form  of  a servant  ” : then 
and  thus  He  became  so  far  Inferior  to  and  subject 
to  that  God  the  Father  on  an  equality  with  whom  He 
might  have  remained  In  His  riches  had  He  so  chosen. 
In  and  for  the  purposes  of  this  redemptive  work  He 

21  Cf.  Harnack,  Hist,  of  Dogma,  i.  p.  119,  note  i:  ‘‘  Dominus  in  certain 
circumstances  means  more  than  Deus;  see  Tertull  Apol.  ...  It 
signifies  more  than  Soter;  see  Irenaeus  I.  i.  3:  . . . ‘They  say 
Saviour  since  they  do  not  wish  to  call  Him  Lord’  . . .” 


238  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

V is  the  Mediator  of  God  the  Father,  whose  He  Is,  and 
who  is  His  Head  and  His  God;  whose  will  Hejger- 
forms  and  whose  purposes  of  grace  He  executes;  and 
to  whom,  when  the  redemptive  work  Is  fully  accom- 
plished and  its  fruits  garnered.  He  shall  restore  the 
Kingdom,  that  God  may  be  all  in  all.  In  a word,  there 
underlies  Paul’s  statements  not  merely  the  conceptions 
which  have  found  expression  in  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  and  the  Incarnation,  but  those  also  which  have 
found  expression  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Covenant  of 
Redemption  in  accordance  with  which  the  Persons  of 
the  Godhead  carry  on  each  His  own  part  of  the  work 
of  redemption:  and  he  who  will  not  recognize  these 
conceptions  in  the  Pauline  statements  must  ever  find 
those  statements  a confused  puzzle  of  contradictions, 
which  can  be  reduced  to  apparent  harmony  only  by 
doing  manifest  violence  to  one  or  another  series  of 
them.  Only  on  the  presupposition  of  these  conceptions 
can  it  be  understood  how  the  Apostle  can  speak  of  our 
Lord  now  as  “ in  the  form  of  God,”  “ on  an  equality 
with  God,”  nay,  as  “ God  over  all,”  and  now  as  sub- 
ject to  God  as  His  Head  and  His  God  with  reference 
to  whom  He  performs  all  His  work:  and  how  He 
can  speak  of  “ God  the  Father  ” and  “ Jesus  Christ 
our  Lord  ” as  each  “ God  over  all,”  and  yet  declare 
that  there  is  but  one  Being  who  is  God. 

With  this  high  meaning  of  ‘ Lord  ’ as  attributed 
to  Jesus  in  our  mind  it  is  interesting  to  observe  the 
Designations  various  forms  of  designation  into  which 
Compounded  this  epithet  enters.  These  run  through 
with  ‘ Lord  ’ nearly  all  the  possible  combinations  with 
the  names  of  Jesus.  ‘The  (or  our)  Lord  Jesus,’ 
which,  were  the  title  ‘ Lord  ’ a mere  honorific,  would 


The  Corroboration  of  Paul  239 

be  the  simplest  of  them  all,  but  which,  since  that  title 
is  an  express  declaration  of  deity.  Is  now  the  most 
paradoxical,^^  occurs  some  twenty-four  to  twenty-six 
times,  chiefly  in  the  earlier  Epistles;  and  Its  duplicate, 
‘Jesus  our  Lord,’  twice  more.  ‘The  (or  our)  Lord 
Christ’  Is  less  frequent,  occurring  only  twice  (Rom 
16^®,  Col  3^^).  But  the  full  formula,  ‘the  (or  our) 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,’  Is  the  most  common  of  all,  oc- 
curring some  forty-nine  times,  pretty  evenly  scattered 
through  all  the  Epistles.  ‘The  (or  our)  Lord  Christ 
Jesus’  does  not  occur:  but  in  the  reverse  order  of  the 
titles,  ‘ Christ  Jesus,  the  (or  our,  or  my)  Lord,’  this 
combination  occurs  ten  times  and  by  Its  side,  “ Jesus 
Christ,  our  Lord  ” four  times.  In  all  these  combina- 
tions the  names,  whether  the  simple  ‘ Jesus,’  the  simple 
* Christ,’  or  the  combinations  ‘ Jesus  Christ  ’ or  ‘ Christ 
Jesus,’  appear  to  be  used  as  proper  names,  though, 
no  doubt,  the  appellative  ‘ Christ  ’ does  not  In  any  of 
them  become  a mere  proper  name.  Certainly  In  the 
phrase,  “Ye  serve  the  Lord  Christ,”  the  term  ‘ Christ  ’ 
is  a title  of  dignity  which  is  still  further  enhanced 
by  the  adjunction  of  the  term  ‘ Lord  ’ : and  something 
of  the  same  Intention  to  enhance  an  already  lofty  ascrip- 
tion appears  traceable  In  the  Instances  where  the  fuller 
phrase  ‘Christ  Jesus,  our  Lord’  occurs  (i  Cor 
[2  Cor  4^],  Rom  6“^  8^  [Col  2«],  Eph  3^  [Phil  3«]). 
But  this  obvious  use  of  ‘ Christ  ’ as  a name  of  dignity 

22  Cf.  Heinrici-Meyer,  1896,  on  i Cor  12^,  p.  363:  “The  paradoxi- 
cal synthesis  of  the  historical  personal  name  with  the  divine  name  of 
dignity  (cf.  p.  353”  [where  the  paradox  of  speaking  of  ‘the  Lord’s 
death’  in  ii26  is  adverted  to])  “is  the  crispest  and  most  impressive 
form  of  the  Christian  confession.  The  Apostle  accordingly  looks  upon 
xbptoQ  ’l7j(Tou<:  as  the  fixed  watch-word  of  the  believing  heart,  and 
the  key-note  of  spiritual  speech.” 


240  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

by  no  means  implies  that  it  is  not  employed  practically 
as  a proper  name.  Its  implications  of  Messiahship 
remain  present  and  suggestive,  but  it  has  become  the 
peculiar  property  of  Jesus  who  is  thought  of  as  so 
indisputably  the  Messiah  that  the  title  ‘ Messiah  ’ has 
become  His  proper  name.^® 

It  is  worthy  of  remark  moreover  that  not  only  is 

23  As  Is  natural,  opinions  differ  on  this  matter.  Says  Feine,  op.  cit. 
29:  “It  is  still  a much  controverted  question.  Bornemann  (Meyer’s 
Com.  on  I Thess.  maintains  that  A'/>C(Trd?  is  never  a proper  name 
in  the  N.  T. : on  the  other  hand,  von  Soden  {Theolog.  Abhandlungen 
Weizsdcker  ge^vidmet,  1902,  p.  n8),  considers  Xptffzo?  already  to 
have  won  the  character  of  a proper  name  so  fully  that  it  has  the  article 
only  about  sixty  times.’  Westcott-Hort  also  print  Xpiffr6<;  when  it 
stands  without  the  article,  as  a proper  name  with  a capital  initial:  on 
which  Schmiedel  (Winer,  Grammatik,  § 54)  remarks  that  d Xpt(TT6<s 
just  as  truly  is  a proper  name  in  a series  of  passages.’”  “ Hausleiter 
also  (p.  9)  points  out  that  ‘Christ’  has  for  the  Apostle  frequently  the 
significance  of  a proper  name  for  designating  the  person  of  Jesus.” 
Feine  thinks  the  term  is  appellative  in  such  passages  as  Rom  9® 

2 Cor  $1®,  Gal  and  that  the  Messianic  suggestion  is  generally 
present.  Dr.  Sanday  in  his  Inspiration,  289,  speaks  cautiously  (but 
scarcely  cautiously  enough):  “We  know  how  in  the  Epistles  ‘Christ* 
has  become  almost  a proper  name.  It  may  perhaps  retain  rather  more 
of  its  true  meaning  than  we  are  apt  to  realize;  but  if  not  exactly  a 
proper  name  it  is  rapidly  becoming  such.”  So  far,  so  good.  But  more 
doubt  attaches  to  the  assertions  that  follow:  “In  the  Gospels,  on  the 

other  hand,  it  nearly  always  means,  as  in  the  mouth  of  our  Lord  and 
His  strict  contemporaries  it  must  have  meant,  ‘ the  Messiah  ’ . . . 

The  compound  phrase  ‘Jesus  Christ’  occurs  a few  times  (Mt 
(v.  1.)  i62i  (v.  i.)^  ji^  jno  ii7  173  2o31),  but  always,  with  one  ex- 
ception (Jno  17^),  as  it  should  do,  in  words  of  the  evangelist  and  not 
of  our  Lord  Himself.  The  true  phrase,  the  natural  phrase  in  our 
Lord’s  life-time,  is  of  course  that  which  we  find  three  times  in  St.  Mat- 
thew, ‘Jesus  nvho  is  called  Christ*  (Mt  27^^’22),”  Dj-,  Sanday  mis- 
conceives the  significance  of  the  phrase  ‘ Jesus  who  is  called  Christ,* 
not  perceiving  that  it  presupposes  that  ‘ Christ  ’ had  already  become  a 
quasi-proper  name,  having  in  this  respect  the  same  implications  as  the 
compound  ‘Jesus  Christ.’ 


241 


The  Corroboration  of  Paul 

‘ Christ  ’ a proper  name  of  our  Lord  with  Paul,  but 
« Christ’  Paul’s  it  is  his  favorite  designation  for  Him.^* 
Favorite  For,  full  and  rich  as  Paul’s  employ- 
Designation  term  ‘ Lord  ’ is,  it  is  not 

nearly  so  frequently  employed  by  him  as  ‘ Christ,.’  This 
designation  (more  commonly  with  than  without  the 
article)^®  occurs  in  his  Epistles  no  fewer  than  210  or 
2JJ  times  in  its  simplicity,  and  many  more  times  in 
combination  with  other  designations.  It  is  most  dom- 
inantly Paul’s  favorite  name  for  our  Lord  in  the  great 
central  Epistles — Romans,  Corinthians  and  Galatians, 
— in  which  it  occurs  some  138  to  140  times;  but  it  is 
also  very  frequent  in  the  Epistles  of  the  first  imprison- 

24Harnack,  Hist.  Dog.,  E.  T.,  I.  p.  184,  note  2,  says:  “Only  in  the 
second  half  of  the  second  century,  if  I am  not  mistaken,  did  the  desig- 
nation ‘ Jesus  Christ  ’ or  ‘ Christ  ’ become  the  current  one,  more  and 
more  crowding  out  the  simple  Jesus.”  This  appears  to  be  founded  on 
the  relative  usage  of  the  terms  in  the  writings  of  the  early  post-Apos- 
tolic  age.  On  taking  a broader  outlook  the  appearance  of  things  is 
altered.  Already  in  Paul  the  simple  ‘Jesus’  has  retired  into  the  back- 
ground and  the  simple  ‘ Christ  ’ together  with  compounds  of  ‘ Christ  ’ 
has  taken  its  place.  There  is  in  fact  no  question  here  of  change  or 
development  of  usage:  but  only  of  character  of  literature.  In  the 
N.  T.  ‘Jesus’  is  only  the  narrative  name  of  our  Lord:  ‘ Christ’  and  its 
compounds,  together  with  ‘Lord,’  the  didactic  name.  So  far  as  ap- 
pears from  the  evidence,  Christians  were  from  the  beginning  accus- 
tomed to  speak  of  Jesus  as  ‘ Christ,’  ‘ Lord,’  whenever  they  were  not 
merely  recounting  His  deeds  in  the  flesh.  The  use  of  ‘ Lord  ’ and  its 
high  implications  are  recognized  by  Harnack  as  an  early  phenomenon 
persisting  through  the  succeeding  eras  (p.  183). 

25  Anarthrous  XpiffTo?  in  Paul:  Rom  5®’®  64.8.9  g9,io,i7  9I  6,7,17 

j25  149,16  1^8,18,20,29  i65,7,9,10^  I Cor  il2,17,23,24  2^^  ^1,23,23  41,10,10,15 
^7  615  y22  gll.12  g21  III  1227  1^3.12.13.14,16,17,18,19,20,23^  2 Cor  l21 
215,17  33,14  316,17,18,19,20,20  iq7,7  ii3, 10,13, 23  i22,10,19  Qg] 

16,10,22  2l9.1'7.1’’.20.20,21  313,16,24,27,29  4I9  51,2,4^  £pli  j3  2^2  415,32 

321, 32^  pjlj]  il0,13, 17, 18, 20,21,23, 29  27.16,30  38,9^  CqI  j2, 27,28  22,5,8,20  3!!^ 

Philem  6,8,30,  i Thess  3®  4^®;  and  not  at  all  in  the  Pastorals;  127  in  all. 


' Christ 
Jesus  * 


242  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

ment  (67  times  in  Eph.,  Col.,  Phil,  Philemon),  and 
is  unusual  only  in  the  Thessalonian  letters  (4  times 
only)  and  in  the  Pastorals  (once  only).  It  surprises 
us  somewhat  to  observe  that  next  to  the  simple  ‘ Christ  ’ 
(and  ‘Lord’),  Paul’s  favorite  designation  for  our 
Lord  is  the  compound  ‘ Christ  Jesus.’ 
This  form,  as  we  have  seen,  seems  to 
occur  occasionally  in  Acts,  not  only  as 
a Pauline  (24^^)  but  also  as  a primitive  Christian 
(3^®)  and  a Lucan  formula  (5^“).^®  But  in  Paul’s 
Epistles  it  occurs  not  less  than  82  (84)  times,  regu- 
larly anarthrously  (except  Eph  3^  cf.  3“,  Col  2®), 
and  pretty  evenly  distributed,  though  with  a tendency 
to  increased  frequency  in  the  progress  of  time  (Thess. 
only  2;  Gal.,  Cor.,  Rom.  29;  first  imprisonment,  29; 
Pastorals  24).  It  is  possible  that  the  prepositing  of 
the  ‘ Christ  ’ may  throw  greater  emphasis  upon  the 
Messianic  dignity  of  Jesus  than  was  currently  felt  in 
the  opposite  compound  ‘ Jesus  Christ,’^"^  which  is  much 
less  frequent  in  Paul  (only  23  times;  and  not  at  all 
in  Thess.,  Col.,  Philemon).  But  in  any  case,  both 


26  Cf.  also  Mt  1^®,  V.  r. 

27  So  e.g.  Paul  Feine,  op.  cit.,  p.  36:  “The  ground  of  this  combina- 

tion is  a feeling  of  need  on  Paul’s  part  to  throw  the  Messianic  aspect 
of  Jesus  into  the  foreground.  This  form,  XpiaTo^  accord- 

ingly has  much  the  same  significance  as  that  in  which  the  Apostle  uses 
the  simple  ‘ Christ.’  ” In  his  comment  on  Rom  Dr.  Sanday  dis- 
cusses the  forms  of  the  names  of  Jesus  used  by  Paul  in  the  addresses  to 
his  Epistles.  He  supposes  that  in  the  addresses  of  the  earlier  Epistles 
Paul  used  ApiffTo<^^  but  in  those  of  the  later  Xpiar6<: 

Irjffou?.  “ The  interest  of  this,”  he  adds,  “ would  be  in  the  fact 
that  in  Xptffzdg  the  first  word  would  seem  to  be  rather 

more  distinctly  a proper  name  than  in  Xptffzog,  No  doubt 

the  latter  phrase  is  rapidly  passing  into  a proper  name,  but  XpurzS^ 
would  seem  to  have  a little  of  its  sense  as  a title  still  clinging  to  it:  the 


The  Corroboration  of  Paul  243 

formulas  are  employed  as  practically  proper  names  of 
our  Lord,  and  it  is  difficult  to  trace  any  difference  in 
the  implications  of  their  use.  Along  with  these  simple 
compounds  Paul  also  employs  the  more  elaborate 
formulas,  ‘the  (or  our)  Lord  Jesus  Christ,’  ‘Jesus 
Christ  our  Lord,’  ‘ Christ  Jesus,  the  (or  our,  or  my) 
Lord.’  The  first  of  these  meets  us  most  frequently, 
C occurring  indeed  no  fewer  than  49  times,  pretty  evenly 
(.distributed  through  the  Epistles.  (The  second  occurs 
( only  four  times  (Romans  3 and  i Cor  i)  : and  the 
last  only  ten  times  (two  central  groups  of  Epistles 
only).  In  these  sonoxqus  formulas  the  Apostle  ex- 
presses his  deep  sense  of  reverence  to  the  person  of 
Jesus,  and  he  tends  to  fall  into  one  or  the  other  of 
them  whenever  he  is  speaking  of  his  Master  with 
solemnity  and  exalted  feeling.^®  It  is  noticeable  that 

phrase  would  be  in  fact  transitional  between  Aptffzd^  or  6 Xptffvo^ 
of  the  Gospels  and  the  later  Apcffzo^  ^Irj<jov<$  or  Xpiazo^i  simply 
as  a proper  name.”  He  refers  us  to  his  own  Bampton  Lectures^  p.  289 
seq.y  and  to  an  article  by  the  Rev.  F.  Herbert  Stead  in  The  Expositor, 
1888,  i.  pp.  386  seq.  According  to  Feine,  then  Xpiffzd?  is  more 

of  a proper  name;  according  to  Sanday  it  is  less  of  a proper  name, 
than  ^It}(Tou<^  Xpi(jz6<s.  The  truth  seems  to  be  that  both  are  prac- 
tically proper  names:  and  neither  has  lost  the  whole  implication  of 
office.  For  the  rest  is  it  not  rash  to  speak  of  one  as  an  “ earlier  ” or 
a “later”  form  than  the  other?  “Jesus  Christ”  is,  indeed,  placed 
once  on  our  Lord’s  lips  (Jno  17^),  and  is  used  by  the  evangelists  (Mt 
ii,i8  1521^  ]y^|j  ji^  jjjo  ii7  [178] but  “Christ  Jesus”  already  appears 
on  the  lips  of  the  earliest  followers  of  Jesus  (Acts  3^®),  and  in  Paul’s 
earliest  epistle  (i  Thess  5^®)*  “Jesus  Christ”  appears  not  only  in 
1 Thess  (i^  3I  j9,23,28)^  but  also  in  James  (i^  z^). 

28  Cf.  Feine,  op.  cit.,  pp.  41  seq.:  Xpiffz6<$  6 xvpto^ 

'Irjffou<;  are  already  solemn  names  of  Jesus:  and  this  is  in  still 
higher  degree  the  case  with  6 xopto^  (ijpwv^  Tr)ffoo<:  Xptffz6(s.  It 
gives  expression  formally  and  ceremoniously  to  the  majesty  of  Jesus 
over  against  the  believers,  and  has  something  in  it  of  the  nature  of  a 


244  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

they  are  apt  to  be  employed  in  the  formal  solemn 
opening  and  closing  sections  of  his  Epistles,  and  when- 
ever Jesus  is  named  in  direct  connection  with  God. 

In  the  Pastoral  Epistles  the  compound  names  ‘ Jesus 
Christ  ’ and  ‘ Christ  Jesus  ’ occur  also  in  composition 
with  the  epithet  ‘ Saviour  ’ : ‘ Christ 
^Saviour^*  Jesus  our  Saviour’  (Titus  i^),  ‘Jesus 
Christ  our  Saviour’  (Titus  3®),  ‘our 
Saviour  Christ  Jesus’  (2  Tim  i^®),  ‘our  Saviour 
Jesus  Christ’  (Titus  2^^).  In  the  earlier  Epistles, 
Jesus  is  indeed  not  only  treated  as  our  ‘ Saviour,’  but 
the  epithet  is  given  Him  as  a title  of  honor,  it  being 
a mark  of  Christians  that  they  look  for  a ‘ Saviour  ’ 
from  heaven,  even  ‘the  Lord  Jesus  Christ’  (Phil  3“^ 
cf.  Eph  5“®).  But  the  precise  forms  of  expression 
occurring  in  the  Pastorals  are  not  found  in  these.  The 
significance  of  the  epithet  ‘ Saviour  ’ thus  applied  to 
Jesus  may  perhaps  be  suggested  by  the  circumstance 
that  it  is  in  the  same  Epistles  a standing  epithet  of 
God.  Paul  describes  himself  as  an  apostle  of  Jesus 
Christ  “ according  to  the  command  of  God  our  Saviour 
and  Christ  Jesus  our  hope”  (i  Tim  ih  cf.  Titus  i^), 
and  wishes  Timothy  to  live  so  as  to  be  acceptable  “ in 
the  sight  of  God  our  Saviour”  (2^  cf.  Titus  2^^) 
whose  glory  it  is  to  be  ‘the  Saviour’  of  man  (4^^), 
in  accordance  with  His  love  to  men  as  our  ‘ Saviour  ’ 
(Titus  3^).’*^  The  ascription  of  this  epithet  thus  in- 
confession. ...  In  Paul  this  formula  occurs  for  the  most  part  in 
the  opening  and  closing  greetings.  . . . And  it  occurs  frequently 

when  Jesus  is  named  in  connection  with  God.”  “Both  of  the  formulas 
[A^:<rro9  Ur}<roo^  6 x6pto<^  fioo^  and  Xpi(TTd<$ 

6 xupio^  have  something  very  solemn  about  them.” 

Cf . Swete  on  Rev  : “ The  cry  '//  awrrjpia  T<p  xai  zip  &pv(<p 
is  equivalent  to  attributing  to  Both  the  title  of  Icjzyjpj  so  freely 


The  Corroboration  of  Paul  245 

terchangeably  to  God  and  to  Jesus  assimilates  Jesus 
to  God  and  leaves  us  in  less  doubt  bow  we  are  to  take 
tbe  passage  in  Titus  2^^  wbicb  in  contrast 
God*  Christ’s  first  coming  in  grace 

speaks  of  tbe  impending  “ appearing 
of  tbe  glory  of” — shall  we' say  “the  great  God  and 
our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ”? — or  shall  we  not  rather 
say  “our  great  God  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ”?  If 
the  latter  construction  is  followed,  as  it  seems  it  should 
be,®°  it  provides  us  with  one  of  the  most  solemn  ascrip- 
tions of  proper  deity  to  Jesus  Christ  discoverable  in  the 
whole  compass  of  the  New  Testament. 

Perhaps  something  similar  is  implied  in  the  designa- 
tion of  Him  in  Eph  i®  as  the  ‘ Beloved,’  the  epithet 
appearing  in  its  simple  majesty  without 
‘The  Beloved*  qualification:  “His  grace  which  He” 
— that  is  God — “ freely  bestowed  on  us 
in  the  Beloved.”  We  have  already  had  occasion  to 
point  out  the  significance  of  this  phrase  on  its  appear- 

given  by  loyal  or  pliant  cities  of  Asia  to  the  Emperors,  but  belonging 
in  Christian  eyes  only  to  God  and  to  His  Christ.  The  Pastoral  Epistles 
supply  examples  of  both  applications,  (i)  i Tim  2^,  Tit  3^^  {2) 
Tit  2^3  3®.”  Also  p.  clxiii. : “The  phrase  is  perhaps  suggested  by 
the  free  use  of  (TioTijp  on  coins  and  in  inscriptions  in  reference  to  cer- 
tain of  the  heathen  deities  (e.g.  Zeus,  Asklepios),  and  to  the  Emperors. 
John  recalls  the  word  from  these  unworthy  uses,  and  claims  it  for  the 
Ultimate  Source  of  health  and  life.  But  in  this  attribution  he  includes 
Jesus  Christ.” 

Cf.  Weiss  (Meyer)  in  loc.,  correcting  Huther.  Cf.  Schmiedel- 
Winer,  Grammatik,  p.  158:  “ In  Tit  2^^,  2 P i^,  2 Thess  Jude  4,  Eph 
5®,  and  Acts  20^8^  according  to  the  badly  attested  reading  tt]v  ixxX,  too 
xupioo  xai  0£od,  grammar  strictly  requires,  as  well  as  in  2 P 1^^ 
220  32,18^  there  should  be  in  every  case  a single  person  in- 
tended, and  therefore  Christ  be  called  or  povo?  deffTrori^t^. 

Nevertheless  it  is  possible  for  xopioq  in  2 Thess  and  Jude,  and 
in  Eph  (and  Acts)  to  stand  as  a designation  of  a new  person  (§19, 
13  d).  That  (TWTTjp  too  in  Titus  and  2 P can  also  be  so  construed, 


2^6  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

ing  in  the  Gospels  as  a designation  of  Jesus  (Mt  3^^ 
12^^  17^  Mk  9'^,  Lk  3““).  Here  the  same  epithet 
meets  us  without  the  defining  accompaniments;  Jesus 
Christ  is  in  full  simplicity  set  forth  as  by  way  of 
eminence  ‘ the  Beloved/  in  and  through  whom  God 
has  communicated  His  grace  to  men.  This  designation 
of  Christ  “ makes  us  feel,”  we  are  told,  “ the  great- 
ness of  the  divine  grace. But  it  does  this  only  by 
making  us  feel  the  greatness  of  the  Mediator  of  this 
grace.  It  is  only  at  the  cost  of  the  blood  of  the 
‘ Beloved  ’ that  God  has  redeemed  us.  The  epithet 
of  ‘ Saviour  ’ is  a designation  of  our  Lord  from  the 
point  of  view  of  men : this  epithet  of  ‘ Beloved  ’ tells 
us  what  He  is  from  the  point  of  view  of  God — He 
is  God’s  own  unique  One,  the  object  of  His  supreme 
choice,  who  stands  related  to  Him  in  the  intimacy  of 
appropriating  love.  In  the  parallel  passage  in  the 
sister  Epistle  (Col  i^^),  Paul  calls  our  Lord  “the 
Son  of  God’s  love.”  This  seems  a combination  of 
the  two  titles,  the  ‘ Son  of  God,’  and  the  ‘ Beloved  ’ ; 
and  bears  witness  to  their  close  affinity, — ^which  indeed 
is  inherent  in  their  significance.  We  will  recall  that 
in  the  evangelical  use  of  ‘ the  Beloved  ’ it  stands  in 
the  closest  relation  with  ‘ Son  ’ ; “ This  is  my  Son,  the 
Beloved,  in  whom  I am  well  pleased.”  It  is  only  in 

since  it  has  with  it,  is  acc.  to  § 19,  5,  to  be  left  open.  In  any 

case  no  one  will  ground  here  on  Grammar,  but  must  hold  a careless  ( 
construction  possible,  and  therefore  in  deciding  the  question  leave 
room  for  material  considerations.”  Winer  (Thayer,  p.  130)  had  on 
Biblico-theological  grounds  decided  in  these  passages  for  two  persons — ^ 

that  is,  he  had  decided  on  the  strength  of  his  conception  of  what  these 
authors  would  be  likely  to  say;  but  he  allows  that  grammatically  they 
are  flexible  to  the  other  opinion. 

31  Meyer  in  loc. 


The  Corroboration  of  Paul 


247 


connection  with  the  idea  of  ‘ Son,’  thus,  that  ‘ Beloved  ’ 
comes  to  its  rights.^^ 

On  the  other  side,  the  compound  names,  ‘ Jesus 
Christ  ’ and  ‘ Christ  Jesus,’  appear  in  Paul’s  Epistles 
also  in  combination  with  designations 
which  emphasize  rather  the  human  as- 
pect of  our  Lord’s  person.  We  read 
of  “the  man  Jesus  Christ”  (Rom  5^^),  of  “the  man 
Christ  Jesus  ” ( i Tim  2^) , and  somewhat  more  fre- 
quently we  are,  apart  from  such  a combination  with 
His  personal  name,  directed  to  contemplate  our  Lord 
as  a “ Man  ” (dpdpcDTro^) . In  very  few  of  these  in- 
stances, it  is  true,  is  the  emphasis  primarily  upon  the 
fact  of  humanity.  Most  commonly  it  is  thrown  upon 
some  point  of  likeness  or  contrast  between  Jesus  and 
that  other  man,  Adam  (Rom  i Cor  i52M7,[48,49]^ 

cf.  15^%  “ last  Adam  ”),  and  it  is  the  singleness  or  the 
superiority  of  this  ‘ Man  ’ which  is  in  question.  But 
in  a passage  like  i Tim  2^  “ There  is  one  God,  one 
mediator  also  between  God  and  man.  Himself  man, 
Christ  Jesus,”  it  is  clear  that  the  humanity  of  Christ 
itself  is  insisted  upon:  and  there  is  a necessary  if  some- 
what unemphasized  suggestion  of  humanity  underlying 
all  these  passages.  The  lesson  we  must  first  of  all 
draw  from  this  series  of  passages  seems,  then,  to  be 
that  neither  ‘ Jesus  Christ  ’ nor  ‘ Christ  Jesus  ’ is  a 
designation  of  such  supreme  dignity  that  it  could  not 
suggest  itself  as  an  appropriate  name  for  Jesus  when 


32  On  this  designation  see  the  full  note  of  J.  Armitage  Robinson  in 
his  commentary  on  St.  Paul’s  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  1903,  pp. 
229-233;  and  cf.  Hastings’  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  ii.  p.  501.  Cf.  also 
Charles,  The  Ascension  of  Isaiah,  1900,  pp.  3 seq.,  and  E.  Daplyn, 
in  Hastings’  D.  C.  G.,  sub  ‘voc.  (i.  pp.  188,  189). 


24B  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

the  mind  of  the  writer  was  intent  on  precisely  His 
humanity,  as  indeed  no  designation  could  be  in  the 
case  of  a being  who  was  not  purely  divine,  not  even 
‘ the  Lord  of  Glory  ’ ( i Cor  2^)  or  ‘ God  ’ itself 
(Acts  20“®).  Beyond  that,  we  learn,  therefore,  that 
clear  and  strong  as  was  Paul’s  conception  of  the  proper 
deity  of  Christ,  it  in  no  wise  precluded  him  from  also 
recognizing  with  equal  clarity  and  expounding  with 
equal  force  His  essential  humanity.  When  He  who 
was  in  the  form  of  God  took  the  form  of  a servant 
He  was  made  in  the  likeness  of  men 
IVlfrel  ^Man  formed  in  fashion  as  a man 

^ (Phil  2'^’®)  ; and  Paul  found  no  diffi- 

culty in  so  understanding,  even  though  he  also  under- 
stood that  the  taking  the  form  of  a servant  ” was  not 
a supercession  of  “ the  form  of  God  ” but  an  addition 
to  it : and  that  therefore  though  now  made  in  the  like- 
ness of  men  and  formed  in  fashion  as  a man,  Jesus 
remained  nevertheless  unbrokenly  in  the  form  of 
God  ” (pTcdp^cov,  verse  6,  observe  the  tense)  and  able 
at  will  to  lay  hold  again  of  His  essential  equality  with 
God.  Accordingly,  therefore,  the  Apostle,  if  he  rep- 
resented Jesus  as  of  the  seed  of  David,  represented 
Him  as  this  only  on  one  side  of  His  being, — that  side 
which  he  calls  “according  to  the  flesh”  (Rom  i^’^)  : 
if  he  saw  in  Him,  to  the  glory  of  the  covenant  people, 
an  Israelite,  he  saw  this  also  in  Him  only  “ according 
to  the  flesh”  (Rom  9^).  It  cannot  be  denied  that 
there  underlies  this  whole  mode  of  conception  the  idea 
of  “ the  two  natures  ” of  Christ,  on  the  basis  of  which 
alone  can  this  duplex  method  of  speaking  of  Him  be 
defended  or  even  comprehended. 

In  the  opening  verses  of  the  greatest  of  his  Epistles 


The  Corroboration  of  Paul 


249 


the  Apostle  brings  the  two  sides  of  our  Lord’s  being 
The  Two  Sides  sharply  to  our  apprehension.  Reduced 
of  Christ’s  to  its  lowest  terms,  what  he  tells  us 
Being  jg  gjjg  q£  p^jg  £,e|j^g 

our  Lord  was  the  ‘ Son  of  David  ’ and  on  the  other 
^ side  the  ‘ Son  of  God.’  These  two  sides  of  being  he 
speaks  of  respectively  as  “ according  to  the  flesh  ” and 
“according  to  the  Spirit  of  holiness,”  which  may  be 
briefly  paraphrased  respectively  as  the  human  and  the 
divine  sides.  But  he  does  not  leave  us  to  infer  that 
these  two  sides  of  our  Lord’s  being  were  equally  orig- 
inal to  Him.  On  the  contrary,  he  tells  us  that  the 
C human  side  had  a historical  beginning,  while  the  divine 
C side  knew  only  an  historical  establishment : our  Lord 
was  made — came  to  be  {yevofievoc:^ — of  the  seed  of 
V,  David  according  to  the  flesh;  He  was  ‘designated’ 
— ^marked  out  as  {bpcaOevro^) — the  ‘ Son  of  God  ’ by  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead.  Becoming  man.  He  brought 
life  and  immortality  to  light,  and  thus  showed  Himself 
more  than  man, — nothing  less  than  ‘ the  Son  of  God.’ 
^CThe  highest  human  exaltation  is  the  Messiahship : but 
r:^His  Messiahship  was  the  lower  side  of  His  majesty. 
That  He  might  be  the  Messiah  He  stooped  from  His 
prior  estate  of  divine  glory.®®  Thus  clearly  the  Apostle 
presents  our  Lord  as  essentially  the  ‘ Son  of  God,’  and 
this  Sonship  to  God  as  essentially  consubstantiality  with 
God.®^  After  precisely  the  same  fashion,  at  a later 


Cf.  Lightfoot  on  Rom  i*:  “The  word  yev6[xzvo<;  Implies  a prior 
existence  of  the  Son  before  the  Incarnation.  . . . His  Messiahship 
was  after  all  only  the  lower  aspect  of  His  Person  ( xard  aapxa ). 
His  personality  as  the  Divine  Word  . . . was  His  higher  aspect.” 
Cf.  Sanday  on  Rom  “It  is  certain  that  St.  Paul  did  not  hold 
that  the  Son  of  God  became  such  by  the  Resurrection.  The  undoubted 


250  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

point  of  the  same  Epistle,  having  occasion  to  mention 
Christ  as  sprung  from  the  seed  of  Israel,  he  at  once 
pauses  as  if  to  guard  himself  from  the  imputation  of 
insufficient  reverence,  to  add  the  limitation,  “ accord- 
ing to  the  flesh.”  Ele  was  not  wishing  to  speak  of 
Christ  even  incidentally  as  merely  man.  And  so  greatly 
did  his  reverence  for  His  person  swell  in  his  heart, 
that,  in  adjoining  a designation  of  His  higher  na- 
ture, he  is  content  with  nothing  lower  than  the 
highest  conceivable.  “ From  whom  is  Christ,  as  ac- 
cording to  the  flesh,” — that  Christ  “ who  is  in  His 
essential  being  (o  ^v)  none  other  than  God  over  all 
blessed  for  ever”  (9^).  On  the  side  in  which  He 
was  not  “ according  to  the  flesh,”  He  was  the  Supreme 
God  ruling  over  all  things. 

It  is,  however,  significant  rather  than  copious  use 
which  the  Apostle  makes  of  the  category  of  the  ‘ Son 

Epistles  are  clear  on  this  point  (esp.  2 Cor  4^  8^,  cf.  Col  At 

the  same  time  he  did  regard  the  Resurrection  as  making  a difference— 
if  not  in  the  transcendental  relations  of  the  Father  to  the  Son  (which 
lie  beyond  our  cognizance),  yet  in  the  visible  manifestation  of  Sonship 
as  addressed  to  the  understanding  of  men  (cf.  esp.  Phil  2^  . . .).  This 
is  sufficiently  expressed  by  our  word  ‘ designated,’  which  might  perhaps 
with  advantage  also  be  used  in  the  two  places  in  the  Acts  (10^2  1731). 
It  is  true  that  Christ  becomes  Judge  in  a sense  in  which  He  does  not 
become  Son;  but  He  is  Judge  too  not  wholly  by  an  external  creation, 
but  by  an  internal  right.  The  Divine  declaration,  as  it  were,  endorses 
and  proclaims  that  right.  . . . It  is  as  certain  that  when  St.  Paul 

speaks  of  Him  as  6 cdio<^  vid<^  (Rom  8^2)^  o iauroo  v[o?  (8^), 
he  intends  to  cover  the  period  of  preexistence  as  that  St.  John  Identi- 
fies the  fxovoyevrj<^  with  the  preexistent  Logos.”  Cf.  also  Robinson  on 
Eph.  4^®  (p.  100)  : When  Paul  is  treating  of  the  relation  of  our  Lord 
to  the  Church  he  speaks  of  Him  as  ‘the  Christ’;  but  when  he  would 
describe  Him  as  the  object  of  saving  faith,  he  speaks  of  Him  as  the 
‘ Son  of  God  ’ — “ thereby  suggesting.  It  would  seem,  the  thought  of  His 
eternal  existence  in  relation  to  the  Divine  Father.” 


The  Corroboration  of  Paul  25 1 

of  God  ’ In  his  presentation  of  the  personality  of 

‘Son  of  God’  readers.^®  It  Is  doubtless 

at  least  In  part  due  to  his  predilection 
for  the  term  ‘ Lord  ’ as  the  Trinitarian  name  of 
Jesus  that  Paul  speaks  of  Him  only  some  seventeen 
times  as  ‘ the  Son.’^®  In  a number  of  these  instances®’ 
there  is  naturally  little  Indication  of  the  particular  Im- 
plication of  deity  which  It  nevertheless  always  carries 
with  It  In  Paul’s  usage.®®  In  others,  however,  the  whole 
point  of  the  employment  of  the  term  hangs  on  the 
uniqueness  of  the  relation  to  God  which  It  Intimates. 
This  Is  the  case,  for  Instance,  when  this  uniqueness  of 
relation  is  emphasized  by  the  added  term  “ own  ” : 
God,  we  are  told  for  example  (Rom  8®),  sent  “His 
own  Son”  (rov  kaozou  olov)  “In  the  likeness  of  sinful 
flesh  ” “ to  condemn  sin  In  the  flesh  and  again  God 
spared  not  “ His  own  Son  ” ( rod  Idioo  o!ou  ) but  “ de- 
livered Him  up  for  us  all”  (Rom  8®®).  Obviously 
we  are  expected  to  estimate  the  greatness  of  the  gift 


35  It  is  a usage  which  he  was  so  far  from  inventing  that  he  seems  to 
have  brought  it  with  him  when  he  entered  on  his  career  as  a preacher 
of  the  Gospel.  “ It  is  most  significant,”  remarks  Knowling  ( T/ie  Tes- 
timony of  St.  Paul  to  Christ,  p.  43),  “that  the  first  and  earliest  intima- 
tion which  we  have  in  Acts  of  St.  Paul’s  Christian  teaching  is  this,  that 
‘ in  the  synagogues,’  not  to  Greeks  and  Romans,  but  to  Jews  and  prose- 
lytes, ‘he  proclaimed  Jesus  that  He  is  the  Son  of  God’  (Acts  920).” 
It  is  already  an  old  form  of  speech  with  him  when  he  wrote  his  first 
Epistle  (cf.  I Thess  and  see  Knowling,  pp.  229  seq.). 

86  Rom  i3.4.9  510  83.29,32^  j Cot  1528,  2 Cor  Ii9,  Gal  1I6  220  44.6, 
Eph  4^8^  Col  ii8^  1 Thess 

87£.g.  I Thess  iio,  Gal  ii®  220,  Col  Eph  413. 

88  Cf.  Meyer  on  Rom  (E.  T.,  pp.  43,  44):  “The  Apostle  never 
designates  Christ  as  the  oidq  6soT>  otherwise  (cf.  Gess.  v.  d.  Pers. 
Christi,  p.  89  seq.;  Weiss,  Bibl.  Theol.,  p.  309)  than  from  the  stand- 
point of  the  knowledge  of  God  given  him  by  revelation  (Gal  1^6)  ©f 
the  metaphysical  Sonship  (83.32^  Gal  4^  Col  ii3,  phil  2«,  al)P 


252  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

by  the  closeness  of  the  relation  indicated:  It  is  because 
it  was  His  own  Son  whom  He  gave  that  the  love  of 
God  to  us  was  so  splendidly  manifested  In  the  gift 
of  Jesus,  who,  we  are  further  told,  was  for  this 
gift  “ sent  forth  from  ” Himself  (Gal  4^  i^aTriaredev) , 
This  closeness  of  relation,  amounting  really  to  Identity, 
is  somewhat  oddly  suggested  by  the  argument  in  Rom 
^8-10^  Here  we  are  told  that  scarcely  for  a righteous 
man  would  one  die : but  God  commends  His  love  to  us 
— or  as  It  Is  strengtheningly  put.  His  own  love  to  us — 
by  dying  for  us  while  we  were  yet  sinners?  No, — 
by  Chris fs  dying  for  us  while  we  were  sinners ! But 
how  does  God  commend  His  own  love  for  us — by 
someone  else’s  dying  for  us?  Obviously  the  relation 
between  Christ  and  God  Is  thought  of  as  so  Intimate 
that  Christ’s  dying  Is  equivalent  to  God  Himself  dy- 
ing. ^ And  so,  we  read  further  that  this  Christ  Is  God’s 
Son  (v.  10)  and  His  dying  for  us  Is  to  such  an  extent 
the  pledge  of  God’s  love  that  It  carries  with  It  the 
promise  and  potency  of  all  good  things  (vv.  10,  ii). 

With  this  emphasis  on  the  Sonship  of  Christ  and 
its  high  significance  It  Is  a little  strange  that  the  correla- 
tive Fatherhood  of  God  Is  brought  so 
‘the  Father’  Immediate  connection  with  It. 

The  explanation  Is  doubtless  again  that 
Paul  prefers  the  title  ‘ Lord  ’ to  express  our  Lord’s 
Trinitarian  relations.  The  Fatherhood  of  God  is  In 
any  event  not  very  frequently  adverted  to  by  Paul, 
and  Is  very  seldom  brought  Into  Immediate  relation 
with  Jesus.  Indeed  God  Is  expressly  called  the  Father 
of  Jesus  Christ  only  In  those  few  passages  In  which 
He  is  spoken  of  as  “ the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ”  (Rom  15^  2 Cor  11%  Eph  [Col 


The  Corroboration  of  Paul  253 

i^]).  In  a number  of  other  passages  in  which  God  is 
called  ‘the  Father’  the  Trinitarian  relation  seems  in 
mind  (Rom  6^  i Cor  8®  I5^^  Gal  I^  Eph  2^®  6^^  i 
Thess  ih  2 Thess  I^  i Tim  i^,  2 Tim  Titus  i^). 
In  the  other  instances  of  the  application  of  the  name  of 
Father  to  God  the  reference  is  rather  to  His  relation 
to  us  (Rom  T [8^^],  i Cor  T,  Gal  [4"], 
Eph  T 4",  Phil  i2  2^^  42^  Col  i",  I Thess  T 2 
Thess  [2var.  lec.]  Philem  3,  cf.  2 Cor  Eph 
3^^  5“^  Col  Ini  otily  three  passages  are 

the  correlatives  ‘ Son  ’ and  ‘ Father  ’ brought  together 
(i  Cor  15^^  Gal  4^^  Col  i^^),  and  in  no  one  of  these 
instances  is  it  clear  that  the  term  ‘ Father’  is  employed 
in  sole  reference  to  Jesus,  the  unique  ‘ Son.’  In  one 
of  them  we  are  told  that  the  Father  has  delivered  us 
out  of  the  power  of  darkness  and  translated  us  into 
the  Kingdom  of  ‘the  Son  of  His  love’  (Col  i^^), 
where  there  seems  certainly  a reference  to  God’s 
Fatherly  relation  not  only  to  Jesus  ‘ the  Son  of  His 
love  ’ but  also  to  us  who  are  by  His  grace  introduced 
into  a similar  relation  to  God  with  Christ’s  own.  So, 
in  another,  we  are  told  that  because  we  are  sons  God 
has  sent  forth  the  Spirit  of  His  Son  into  our  hearts, 
crying,  Abba,  Father  (Gal  4^) — where  it  is  quite  clear 
that  ‘ Father  ’ has  relation  to  us,  too,  as  the  brethren  of 
Christ.  Even  in  the  remaining  instance,  where  we  are 
told  that  at  the  end  Christ  shall  deliver  up  the  King- 
dom to  God  even  the  Father,  and  even  ‘ the  Son  ’ Him- 
self shall  be  subjected  to  Him,  that  God  may  be  all 
in  all  (i  Cor  15^^),  it  is  by  no  means  obvious  that  the 
term  Father  may  not  again  embrace  with  Christ  all 
those  who  have  been  brought  by  Christ  into  the  King- 
dom. We  may  see  in  all  three  instances  that  the 


/ 


254  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

peculiar  relation  of  the  ‘ Father  ’ and  ‘ Son  ’ lies  at 
the  basis  of  the  thought:  but  this  peculiar  relation 
does  not  in  any  of  them  absorb  the  whole  thought.  It 
seems  to  be  treated  by  Paul  as  a matter  too  well  under- 
stood to  require  particular  insistence  upon.  He  could 
count  on  his  readers,  when  he  spoke  of  Jesus  as  ‘ the 
Son  of  God,’  understanding  without  further  elucidation 
that  he  was  thereby  attributing  to  Him  a unique  re- 
lation, including  proper  deity  along  with  the  Father, 
while  our  co-sonship  was  to  be  realized  only  in  and 
through  Him. 

Another  method  employed  by  Paul  to  indicate  the 
relation  of  Jesus  to  God  is  the  presentation  of  Him 
as  the  ‘ image  of  God  ’ ( 2 Cor  4^,  Col 

that  God  Is  is  the  image  of  God,  we  are 

told,  and  the  light  of  the  knowledge  of 
the  glory  of  God  shines  in  His  face  (2  Cor  4^).  And, 
again.  He  is  the  image  of  the  invisible  God,  the  first- 
born of  all  creation  (Col  i^^).  The  meaning  is  that 
we  may  see  in  Christ  what  God  is:  all  God’s 

glory  is  reflected  in  Him;  and  when  we  see  Him  we 
see  the  Father  also.  Perhaps  the  mere  term  falls  short 
of  expressly  asserting  proper  deity,  though  it  would 
certainly  gain  force  and  significance  if  proper  deity 
were  understood  to  be  asserted.  In  that  case  it  would 
suggest  that  Jesus  Christ  is  just  the  invisible  God  made 
visible.  And  that  this  is  its  actual  significance  with 
Paul  can  scarcely  be  doubted  when  we  recall  that  he 
does  not  hesitate  to  ascribe  proper  deity  to  Jesus,  not 
only  by  means  of  the  designations  ‘ Lord  ’ and  ‘ Son 
of  God,’  but  by  the  direct  application  to  Him  of  the 
name  ‘ God  ’ itself  and  that  in  its  most  enhanced  form 
— ‘ God  over  all  ’ (Rom  9^) , the  ‘ Great  God  ’ (Titus 


255 


The  Corroboration  of  Paul 

2^^).  That  Jesus  Christ  is  intended  in  both  instances 
by  these  great  designations,  seems,  despite  sustained 
efforts  to  deny  them  to  Him,  beyond  legitimate  ques- 
tion.®® The  natural  interpretation  of  the  passages  them- 
selves compels  it : and  no  surprise  can  be  felt  that  Paul, 
who  everywhere  thinks  and  speaks  of  Christ  as  very 
God,  should  occasionally  call  Him  by  the  appropriate 
designation.  These  passages  in  effect  supply  only  the 
to-be-expected  expression  in  plain  language  of  Paul’s 
most  intimate  thought  of  Jesus.  He  is  always  and 
everywhere  to  his  thought  just  ‘ our  Great  God  and 
Saviour,’  ‘ God  over  all,  blessed  for  ever.’ 

It  was  thus,  then,  that  Jesus  was  thought  of,  and 
familiarly  spoken  of,  in  the  Christian  communities 
Paul’s  Jesus  (*  throughout  the  epoch  in  which  the  Syn- 
the  Primitive  ^ Optic  Gospels  were  composed  or,  if  we 
Jesus  choose  to  use  such  misleading  language, 
were  compounded.  The  testimony  of  Paul’s  letters 
comes  from  the  sixth  and  seventh  decades  of  the  cen- 
tury; and  assures  us  that  at  that  time  Jesus  was  to 
His  followers  a man  indeed  and  the  chosen  Messiah 
who  had  come  to  redeem  God’s  people,  but  in  His 
essential  Being  just  the  great  God  Himself.  In  the 
light  of  this  testimony  it  is  impossible  to  believe  there 

39  On  Rom  9®  see  Dwight,  Journal  of  Exegetical  Society,  i88i,  p.  22; 
and  Sanday  in  loc.  with  the  literature  there  mentioned.  Dr.  R.  B. 
Drummond  significantly  writes  {The  Academy,  March  30,  1895,  p. 
273):  “I  must  confess  that  I feel  very  strongly  the  grammatical  diffi- 
culty of  the  Unitarian  interpretation;  but  on  the  other  hand  the  im- 
probability of  Paul  attributing  not  only  deity,  but  supreme  deity  (irl 
TzdvTiov  0e6<i^  to  Christ,  seems  to  me  so  great  as  to  outweigh  all 
other  considerations.”  On  Titus  2^3  see  Weiss’  note  (in  Meyer’s  Com.), 
The  case  against  the  application  of  these  titles  to  Christ  may  be  read, 
as  well  as  elsewhere,  in  Ezra  Abbott,  Journal  of  Exegetical  Society, 
1881,  reprinted  in  his  Critical  Essays. 


256  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

ever  was  a different  conception  of  Jesus  prevalent  in 
the  Church:  the  mark  of  Christians  from  the  begin- 
ning was  obviously  that  they  looked  to  Jesus  as  their 
‘ Lord  ’ and  ‘ called  on  His  name  ’ in  their  worship. 

The  general  significance  of  the  testimony  of  Paul,  we 
may  say,  is  universally  recognized.  Bousset,  for  ex- 
ample, when  engaged  in  repelling  the  crudities  of 
Kalthoff  points  it  out  with  great  distinctness.  In  Paul, 
he  tells  us,  we  have  “ a witness  of  indubitable  value 
from  the  bosom  of  the  Christian  community  for  the 
existence  and  the  significance  of  the  Person  of  Jesus.” 
“ His  conversion,  according  to  the  tradition,  goes  back 
very  nearly  to  the  death  of  Jesus.  His  chief  activity 
falls  in  any  case  in  the  forties  and  fifties.  From  his 
letters  the  historical  existence  of  Jesus™stands  out  be- 
fore us  in  all  clearness.  And  not  merely  does  Paul 
presuppose  this,  as  we  perceive  from  these  letters:  he 
had  intercourse  with  the  first  generation  of  Christians, 
who  had  themselves  seen  the  Lord  Jesus.”  “ Whoever 
would  question  the  existence  of  Jesus  must  erase  also 
the  existence  of  Paul,  as  he  meets  us  in  his  letters.” 
“ With  the  person  of  Paul  the  person  of  Jesus,  too, 
stands  established.”  Nor  is  it  merely  the  existence  of 
a Jesus  which  Paul  thus  substantiates  for  us:  he  rati- 
fies also  the  fact  that  the  person  of  Jesus  had  for  the 
faith  of  the  first  Christian  community  “ no  indeter- 
minate but  a perfectly  determinate  significance.”^® 
In  the  presence  of  Paul’s  letters,  therefore,  it  is  im- 
possible to  deny  that  there  underlies  the  whole  Chris- 

Was  ‘wissen  ou/r  ‘von  Jesus?  1904,  pp.  17-26.  This  much,  says 
Bousset,  is  certain  from  the  general  testimony  of  Paul : “ First,  the  fact 
of  a historical  Jesus  is  assured.  . . . Secondly,  however,  it  is  assured 

that  the  Person  of  Jesus  had  for  the  faith  of  His  first  community  no 
indefinite  but  a perfectly  determinate  significance.” 


The  Corroboration  of  Paul 


257 


tian  movement  the  great  personality  of  Jesus,  or  that 
the  primitive  Christian  community  looked  to  Him  as 
its  founder  and  Lord.  Is  it  not  equally  impossible  to 
deny  in  the  presence  of  these  letters  that  the  primitive 
Christian  community  looked  upon  this  Jesus  as  their 
divine  founder  and  divine  Lord? 

Strange  to  say,  Bousset  draws  back  at  this  point. 
Paul’s  testimony  to  the  existence  of  the  historical 
Jesus  and  to  His  significance  to  the  primitive  Church 
is  decisive.  But  Paul’s  testimony  to  the  estimate 
placed  upon  the  personality  of  this  historical  Jesus 
is  not  trustworthy.  It  is,  indeed,  impossible  to 

doubt  in  the  light  of  his  testimony,  that  “ the 
?^rthly  Jesus  worked  in  the  souls  of  His  disciples 
(with  inexpressible  power”  (p.  26):  and  that  they 
nad  come  to  believe  that  He  had  risen  from  the 
dead.  But  it  does  not  follow  that  they  who  had  com- 
panied  with  Him  in  His  life  shared  Paul’s  idea  that 
He  was  “ essentially  a heavenly  being”  (p.  26).  The 
inconsequence  here  is  flagrant.  Paul  is  not  writing  a 
generation  or  two  later,  when  the  faith  of  the  first  dis- 
ciples was  a matter  only  of  memory,  perhaps  of  fading 
memory;  and  when  it  was  possible  for  him  to  represent 
it  as  other  than  it  was.  He  is  writing  out  of  the  very 
osom  of  this  primitive  community  and  under  its  very 
■^eye.  His  witness  to  the  kind  of  Jesus  this  community 
believed  in  is  just  as  valid  and  just  as  compelling, 
therefore,  as  his  testimony  that  it  believed  in  Jesus  at 
all.  In  and  through  him  the  voice  of  the  primitive 
community  itself  speaks,  proclaiming  its  assured  faith 
in  its  divine  Lord.  This  would  be  true  quite  apart 
from  the  consentient  witness  of  the  Acts  and  the  Gos- 
pels. In  the  presence  of  this  consentient  witness  it 


258  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

IS  impossible  to  contend  that  Paul  has  misrepresented 
or  misconceived  the  faith  of  Christians.  The  same 
divine  Jesus  which  Paul  presents  as  the  universal  and 
aboriginal  object  of  Christian  faith,  Luke  seis  before 
us  in  Acts  from  the  mouth  of  the  primitive  disciples 
— Peter  and  John  and  Jame^and  the  rest — as  from 
the  beginning  believed  on  in  the  Church;  and  the 
same  Luke  with  his  companion  evangelists  represents 
as  Himself  asserting  His  divine  dignity.  The  testi- 
mony of  Paul  mierely  adds  to  this  witness  a new  and 
thoroughly  trustworthy  voice;  and  renders  It  so  much 
the  more  impossible  to  doubt  that  from  the  very  be- 
ginning the  entire  Christian  community  was  firmly  con- 
vinced of  the  deity  of  its  Lord. 

Nor  can  the  force  of  this  testimony  be  broken  or 
even  weakened  by  suggesting  doubts  as  to  the  genu- 
Inaccessibility  ineness  of  more  or  fewer  of  Paul’s  let- 
to  Critical  ters,  or  raising  question  of  a development 
Doubts  of  doctrine  of  the  person  of  our 
Lord  through  their  course.  We  have  treated  them  all 
as  genuine  products  of  Paul’s  mind  and  pen  and  as 
all  of  a piece:  because,  shortly,  the  facts  warrant  such 
a treatment  of  them.  But  the  conclusion  to  be  drawn 
from  them  In  the  matter  in  hand  does  not  depend  on 
so  taking  them.  The  conception  of  Jesus  embedded  in 
these  letters  Is  the  same  In  them  all:  If  they  are  not 
all  Paul’s  they  are  all  Pauline.  You  may  discard  any 
number  of  them  you  choose,  therefore,  as  not  Paul’s 
personal  product:  the  conception  of  Jesus  in  those  that 
remain  Is  not  altered  thereby.  Take  the  extremest 
hypothesis  which  has  ever  even  temporarily  commanded 
the  assent  of  any  considerable  number  of  scholars, — 
the  old  Tubingen  theory  which  allowed  to  Paul  only  the 


The  Corroboration  of  Paul  259 

four  great  Epistles,  Romans,  i and  2 Corinthians  and 
Galatians.^^  In  these  Epistles  may  be  found  Paul’s 
entire  witness  to  the  deity  of  Christ.  It  is  from  them 
that  we  learn  that  Jesus  Christ,  while  on  the  side  of 
His  flesh  of  the  seed  of  David,  had  another  side  to 
His  being,  on  which  He  was  the  Son  of  God  (Rom 
i^’^)  ; that  as  God’s  own  Son  He  was  rich  before  He 
became  poor  by  becoming  of  the  seed  of  David  (2  Cor 
8^)  ; and  that  in  His  real  nature  He  is  not  merely 
God’s  Son  but  Himself  God  over  all,  blessed  for  ever 
(Rom  9^).  When  we  add  to  these  four  great  Epistles 
one  after  another  of  the  others — such  as  Philippians, 
and  I Thessalonians  and  Colossians,  as  practically  all 
living  critics  do^*^ — and  even  Ephesians  and  Second 
Timothy,  as  many  are  willing  to  do — we  merely  add 
to  the  mass  of  the  testimony,  and  in  no  respect  alter 
its  character  or  effect.  These  letters  one  and  all  only 
repeat,  and  in  repeating  more  or  less  clarify,  the  teach- 
ing of  the  four  chief  Epistles  as  to  the  dignity  of  our 
Lord’s  person. 

The  extreme  radicalism  of  the  so-called  Dutch  school,  the  best 
representative  of  which  is  probably  van  Manen  (or  in  Germany,  Steck), 
may  safely  be  neglected. 

42  Bousset,  Was  njuissen  ‘wir,  etc.,  pp.  19,  20,  says:  “It  is  not,  however, 
at  all  the  case  that  the  critical  theology  denies  to  Paul  all  others  of 
the  letters  ascribed  to  him  with  the  exception  of  the  four  chief  Epistles 
(and  possibly  also  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians).  If  the  critical  the- 
ology once  did  that,  it  has  since  corrected  itself  here.  Thus  with  ever 
increasing  confidence  it  has  again  accredited  to  Paul,  together  with  the 
Epistle  to  the  Philippians,  i Thessalonians  also,  and  Colossians,  with 
the  exception  of  perhaps  a few  verses.  Lately  a theologian  like  Jiilicher, 
whom  no  one  can  accuse  of  anti-critical  prepossessions,  has  again  de- 
fended the  genuineness  of  Ephesians  on  striking  grounds.  With  ever 
greater  clearness  and  definiteness  doubts  are  confining  themselves  to 
particular  Epistles — 2 Thess.,  i Tim,  and  Titus.”  Weinel  bases  his 
picture  of  St.  Paul  the  Man  and  His  Work  (E.  T.,  1906),  on  Romans, 


26o 


The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

For  this  same  reason  nothing  is  gained  for  our  pres- 
ent purpose  by  treating  the  Epistles  not  all  together, 
but  in  small  chronologically  arranged 
^Deve'lopmenf  groups.  ^ Slight  differences  may  be  ob- 
served,  it  is  true,  from  group  to  group 
in  modes  of  expression  and  relatively  favorite  forms 
of  statement.  But  no  differences  can  be  traced  in  the 
conceptions  which  are  brought  to  expression  in  these 
varying  forms  of  statements.  For  example,  the  ruling 
designation  of  Christ  in  the  Thessalonians  is  ‘ the 
Lord’  (22),  with  ‘the  Lord  Jesus  Christ’  (14)  a 
somewhat  close  second,  and  ‘the  Lord  Jesus’  (10) 
third,  while  the  simple  ‘ Christ  ’ occurs  only  four  times. 
In  Romans,  Corinthians,  Galatians,  on  the  other  hand, 
it  is  the  simple  ‘ Christ  ’ which  becomes  the  favorite 
designation,  with  ‘ Lord  ’ a good  second : and  the  same 
is  true  of  the  Epistles  of  the  first  imprisonment.  In 
the  Pastorals,  on  the  other  hand,  while  ‘ Lord  ’ is  still 
common,  ‘ Christ,’  as  in  Thessalonians,  falls  into  the 
background,  and  ‘ Christ  Jesus  ’ becomes  the  favorite 
designation.  Variations  like  these,  it  is  obvious,  are 
rather  interesting  to  those  who  are  engaged  in  studying 
the  literary  form  of  the  Epistles  than  important  in 
estimating  their  witness  to  the  deity  of  our  Lord. 
Through  all  such  variations,  the  product  of  circum- 
stance, the  essential  teaching  of  all  these  Epistles  upon 

I and  2 Cor,  Gal,  Phil,  and  i Thess  only:  but  he  is  willing  to  admit 
that  “the  vast  majority  of  critics  consider  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians 
and  the  short  note  to  Philemon  to  be  genuine,”  and  that  some  not  un- 
worthy of  the  name  of  critics  add  Eph.  and  2 Thess.  (p.  ix.)  Wrede 
{Paulus,  1905)  uses  Romans,  i and  2 Cor.,  Gal.,  Philip.,  i Thess.,  Col., 
Philem. ; while  Wernle  makes  use  of  all  except  the  Pastorals  {Beginnings 
of  Christianity,  1903). 


26i 


The  Corroboration  of  Paul 

the  person  of  Christ  remains  the  same.  In  them  all 
alike  He  is  the  divine  ‘ Lord/  whose  right  it  is  to  rule: 
the  ‘Son  of  God/  consubstantial  with  the  Father:  the 
‘ great  God  and  Saviour  ’ of  sinners : ‘ God  over  all, 
blessed  forever.’  And  in  their  consentient  testimony  to 
the  deity  of  Christ  they  make  it  clear  to  us  that  upon 
this  point,  at  least,  the  whole  primitive  Church  was 
of  one  unvarying  mind. 


THE  WITNESS  OF  THE  CATHOLIC 
EPISTLES 


There  yet  remains  a certain  amount  of  corroborative 
evidence  for  the  conclusions  which  we  have  reached, 
Catholic  borne  by  a series  of  letters  which  have 
Epistles  been  preserved  to  us,  purporting  to  be 
Corroborative  compositions  of  primitive  followers 
of  our  Lord.  We  use  the  term  “purporting”  not  be- 
cause we  have  any  doubt  that  they  are  all  that  they 
profess  to  be,  but  because  their  descriptions  of  them- 
selves have  not  been  accepted  as  valid  in  ail  critical 
circles,  and  because  we  do  not  consider  it  necessary  to 
pause  to  vindicate  their  authenticity  here.  If  their 
testimony  were  substantially  different  from  that  of  the 
more  extended  documents  which  we  have  already  passed 
in  review,  it  might  be  required  of  us  to  validate  their 
claim  to  give  testimony  to  the  primitive  conception  of 
Christ,  before  admitting  their  witness.  As,  however, 
they  yield  only  corroborative  testimony,  we  may  be 
content  to  present  it  for  what  it  seems  to  each  indi- 
vidual to  be  worth.  In  any  event  it  helps  to  make 
clear  to  us  the  absolute  harmony  of  early  Christianity 
taken  in  a wide  sense  in  its  lofty  conception  of  its  Lord’s 
person,  and  thus  adds  weight  to  what  we  have  learned, 
from  the  more  important  documents,  of  the  concep- 
tion current  in  the  first  age.  And  just  in  proportion 
as  we  recognize  these  letters,  too,  as  a legacy  of  the 
first  age,  reflecting  the  belief  of  the  first  generation  of 


The  Catholic  Epistles 


263 


Christians,  their  corroborative  evidence  will  become 
more  and  more  significant  to  us.  If,  as  In  our  own 
judgment  they  ought  to  be,  they  are  accepted  at  their 
face  value,  their  testimony  becomes  of  primary  Im- 
portance, and  would  suffice  of  Itself  to  assure  us  of 
the  attitude  of  mind  our  Lord’s  followers  cherished 
towards  Him  from  the  beginning.  We  shall  present 
their  testimony  then  frankly  from  this  our  own  point 
of  view,  without  stopping  to  argue  our  right  to  do  so. 
It  will  thus  at  least  be  made  apparent  that  the  whole 
body  of  writings  gathered  Into  what  we  call  the  New 
Testament  unite  In  commending  to  us  one  lofty  view 
of  Christ’s  person.  For  In  all  these  letters,  too,  as  In 
those  which  have  already  claimed  our  attention,  Jesus 
appears  fundamentally  as  the  divine  object  of  the 
reverential  service  of  Christians. 

Among  these  letters  a special  Interest  attaches  to 
the  Epistles  of  James  and  Jude,  because  of  their  au- 

James’  and  thorship  by  kinsmen  of  our  Lord  accord- 

ChrStology  flesh,  who  moreover  did  not 

High  believe  In  Him  during  His  earthly  man- 
' Ifestatlon  (Jno  7^)  : to  which  Is  added  in  the  case  of 
the  Epistle  of  James,  Its  exceedingly  early  date  (a.  d. 
45  )> — ^ antecedent  to  that  of  any  other  of  the 

canonical  books.  Not  only  does  not  the  simple  ‘ Jesus  ’ 
occur  In  either  of  these  Epistles  or  even  the  simple 
‘ Christ,’  but  our  Lord  Is  uniformly  spoken  of  by  des- 
ignations expressive  of  marked  reverence.  Both  writers 
^describe  themselves  simply  as  “ servants  ” — that  Is, 
><“  bond-servants,”  “ slaves,”^ — James  “ of  God  and  of 

1 We  must  not  press,  however,  the  ignoble  connotations  of  “ slaves  ” 
to  our  modern  minds:  entire  subjection  is  all  that  is  imputed.  Cf. 
Mayor  on  Jude  i. 


264  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

the  Lord  Jesus  Christ”  (i^),  and  Jude  with  striking 
directness  simply  “of  Jesus  Christ”  (i).  The  ac- 
knowledgment of  Jesus  as  their  ‘ Lord  ’ Implied  In  this 
self-designation  Is  emphasized  In  both  Epistles  by 
the  constant  employment  of  this  title  In  speaking  of 
Jesus. 

James  speaks  of  our  Lord  by  name  only  twice,  and 
on  both  occasions  he  gives  Him  the  full  title  of  rever- 
ence: ‘the  (or  our)  Lord  Jesus  Christ’  (i^  2^)  — 
coupling  Him  In  the  one  case  on  equal  terms  with  God, 
and  In  the  other  adding  further  epithets  of  divine 
dignity.  Elsewhere  he  speaks  of  Him  simply  as  ‘ the 
Lord’  (^'^*8  [141,15^2  contexts  which  greatly  enhance 
the  significance  of  the  term.  The  pregnant  use  of  ‘ the 
Name,’  absolutely,  which  we  found  current  among  the 
early  Christians  as  reported  In  the  Acts,  recurs  here; 
and  James  advises  In  the  case  of  sick  people  that  they 
be  prayed  over,  while  they  are  anointed  with  oil 
“In  the  Name”  (5^^).  The  “Name”  Intended  Is 
clearly  that  of  Jesus,  which  is  thus  In  Christian 
usage  substituted  for  that  of  Jehovah.  A unique  epithet, 
equally  Implying  the  deity  of  the  Lord,  Is  applied  to 
Him  in  the  exhortation,  “ My  brethren,  hold  not  the 
faith  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the 
‘the^GloV’  Glory,  with  respect  of  persons”  (2^). 

‘ The  Glory  ’ seems  to  stand  here  In  ap- 
position to  the  name,  “ our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,”  further 

2 Sven  Herner,  op.  cit,  thinks  that  ‘ Lord  ’ is  used  of  Jesus  only  at 
Mayor  on  thinks  it  probable  that  it  is  used  of  Jesus  also  at 
^[14], 15.  Herner  remarks  (p.  42):  “The  Epistle  of  James  knows  the 
expression  ‘The  Lord  Jesus  Christ’  (i^  2^)  and,  therefore,  uses  xupto<^ 
of  Christ.  Since  this  is  the  case,  we  do  not  venture  definitely  to  deny 
that  Christ  is  meant  in  the  expression  ‘ the  coming  of  the  Lord ’ 


The  Catholic  Epistles  265 

defining  Him  in  His  majesty.*  There  is  here  some- 
thing more  than  merely  the  association  of  our  Lord 
with  glory,  as  when  we  are  told  that  He  had  glory  with 
God  before  the  world  was  (Jno  17^),  and  after  His 
humiliation  on  earth  (though  even  on  earth  He  mani- 
fested His  glory  to  seeing  eyes,  Jno  2^^  17^“)  entered 
again  into  His  glory  (Lk  24“®,  Jno  17“^,  i Tim  3^^  Heb 
2^  cf.  Mt  19^*  2 5*^  [Mk  10*'^]),  and  is  to  come  again 
in  this  glory  (Mt  16^^  24*"  25*^  Mk  8**  I3"^  Lk  9^" 
2i^\  Titus  2^*,  I P 4^*).  We  come  nearer  to  what  is 
implied  when  we  read  of  Jesus  being  ‘ the  Lord  of 
Glory’  (i  Cor  2^),  that  is  He  to  whom  glory  belongs 
as  His  characterizing  quality;  or  when  He  is  described 
to  us  as  “the  effulgence  of  the  glory  of  God”  (Heb 
I*).  The  thought  of  the  writer  seems  to  be  fixed  on 
those  Old  Testament  passages  in  which  Jehovah  is  de- 
scribed as  the  “ Glory”:  e.  g.,  “ For  I,  saith  Jehovah, 
will  be  unto  her  a wall  of  fire  round  about,  and  I will 
be  the  Glory  in  the  midst  of  her”  (Zech  2^).  In  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  James  sees  the  fulfillment  of  these 
promises:  He  is  Jehovah  come  to  be  with  His  people; 
and,  as  He  has  tabernacled  among  them,  they  have 
seen  His  glory.  He  is,  in  a word,  the  Glory  of  God, 
the  Shekinah:  God  manifest  to  men.  It  is  thus  that 
James  thought  and  spoke  of  his  own  brother  who  died 
a violent  and  shameful  death  while  still  in  His  first 
youth!  Surely  there  is  a phenomenon  here  which  may 
well  waken  inquiry. 

The  attitude  of  Jude  is  precisely  the  same.  He  does 

although  Peter’s  remark  on  the  advent  of  the  day  of  God  (2  P 3^2) 
makes  such  an  ascription  unlikely,  and  it  is  to  be  noted  that  in  the 
preceding  and  following  verses  xupto?  is  used  of  God.” 

3 Bengel,  Bassett,  Mayor. 


266  The  Designations  of  Oiir  Lord 

indeed  speak  of  Christ  in  the  address  of  his  Epistle 
by  the  simpler  formal  title  of  ‘ Jesus 
‘the  Despot’  Christ,’  but  in  accordance  with  his  de- 
scription of  himself  at  that  point  as 
the  “ slave  ” of  this  ‘ Jesus  Christ,’  he  tends  to  multiply 
reverential  titles  in  speaking  of  Him  elsewhere.  To 
Him  our  Lord  is  always  ‘ our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  ’ 
(17,  21),  ‘Jesus  Christ  our  Lord’  (25),  ‘our  only 
Master  {deaTTozyj^)  and  Lord,  Jesus  Christ’  (4) — a 
phrase,  this  last  one,  so  strong  that  many  commentators 
balk  at  it  and  wish  to  render  it  ‘ the  only  Master,  viz., 
God,  and  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.’^  But  we  cannot  feel 
surprised  that  one  who  pointedly  calls  himself  in  the 
first  verse  of  his  Epistle  “ slave  ” of  Jesus  Christ, 
s^should  apply  the  correlative  of  that  term,  “ Despotic 
Master  and  Lord  ” to  Jesus  Christ,  three  verses  later. 
No  doubt  “ no  Jew  could  use  ” such  a phrase  “ without 
thinking  of  the  one  Master  in  heaven  ” but  that  is 
only  evidence  that  this  Jew  thought  of  Jesus  who  was 
his  ‘ Lord’  and  whose  “ slave  ” he  recognized  himself 
\ as  being,  as,  in  this  eminent  sense,  his  “ Master  in 
heaven”  (cf.  2 P 2^).  Obviously  it  is  the  testimony 
of  these  two  Epistles  that  Jesus  was  conceived  by  His 
first  disciples  as  their  divine  Lord  and  Master. 

The  designations  of  our  Lord  in  i Peter  are  notably 
simple,  but  none  the  less  significant.  Peter’s  favorite 
designation  for  Him  (as  it  is  Paul’s) 
of  simple  ‘ Christ,’  used,  ordinarily 

at  least,  as  a proper  name,  though  of 

See  on  the  passage,  Bigg  and  Mayor  in  loc. 

® The  phrase  is  Mayor’s  {in  loc.):  who  notes  also  the  use  of  the  word 
de(T7:6(7uvot  by  Julius  Africanus  (Eus.  H.  E.,  i.  7)  to  denote  the  kins- 
folk of  Jesus,  and  justly  remarks  that  this  implies  a current  earlier 
emolovment  of  SEfTTrornc  of  our  Lord. 


The  Catholic  Epistles  267 

course  not  without  Its  appellative  significance  still  cling- 
ing to  It  and  In  one  or  two  Instances  becoming 

prominent  2^1  ^1,10,14)^  Next  to 

the  simple  ‘ Christ  ’ Peter  uses  by  predilection  the  sim- 
plest of  the  solemn  compound  names,  ‘ Jesus  Christ  ’ 

1,2, 3, 7, 13  2^  ^21  ^11^^  address  to  the  Epistle  he 

sets  this  designation  In  Its  place  in  the  trine  formula 
of  Father,  Spirit  and  Jesus  Christ,  with  the  effect  of 
suggesting  the  Threefold  Name,  that  Is  to  say,  with 
underlying  Implication  of  the  Trinity.®  Similarly  in 

where  “ the  Spirit  of  Christ,”  that  Is,  most  naturally, 
the  Spirit  which  proceeds  from  and  represents  Christ, 
is  spoken  of  as  having  resided  In  the  ancient  prophets, 
the  preexistence  of  Christ  Is  assumed."^  Besides  these 
proper  names,  Peter  speaks  of  our  Lord  by  the  desig- 
nation ‘ Lord  ’ 3^^  cf.  2“^  and  Bigg  in  loc.  and  p. 

109)  and  In  doing  so  applies  an  Old  Testament  text 
to  Him  in  which  ‘ Lord  ’ stands  for  ‘ Jehovah,’  and 

6 Cf.  Hort  in  loc.  (pp.  17,  18)  : “The  three  clauses  of  this  verse  be- 
yond all  reasonable  question  set  forth  the  operation  of  the  Father,  the 
Holy  Spirit  and  the  Son^^  respectively.  Here,  therefore,  as  in  several 
Epistles  of  Paul  (i  Cor  12^-^,  2 Cor  131%  Eph  44-6),  there  is  an  implicit 
reference  to  the  Threefold  Name.  In  no  passage  is  there  any  indica- 
tion that  the  writer  was  independently  working  out  a doctrinal  scheme; 
a recognized  belief  or  idea  seems  to  be  everywhere  presupposed.  How 
such  an  idea  could  arise  in  the  mind  of  St.  Paul  or  any  other  Apostle 
without  sanction  from  a word  of  the  Lord  it  is  difficult  to  imagine:  and 
this  consideration  is  a sufficient  answer  to  the  doubts  which  have,  by  no 
means  unnaturally,  been  raised  whether  Mt  2%^^  may  not  have  been 
added  or  recast  in  a later  generation.  St.  Peter,  like  St.  Paul,  associ- 
ates with  the  subject  of  each  clause,  if  one  may  so  speak,  a distinctive 
function  as  towards  mankind:  on  their  relations  to  the  Divine  Unity 
he  is  silent.” 

Cf.  Bigg  in  loc.  (p.  108),  The  ^ords  rb  h avroT<s  TTvedfxa 
Xpiazou  must  be  accepted  quite  frankly.  Christ  was  in  the  prophets, 
and  from  Him  came  their  inspiration.” 


2 68  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

thus  assimilates  Him  to  the  divine  Being.  By  a com- 
bination of  this  great  title  and  the  solemn  Messianic 
name  of  ‘ Jesus  Christ/  he  calls  Jesus  ‘ our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ’  (i^)/  and  it  is  noticeable  that  it  is  by  this 
significant  title  that  he  designates  Jesus  when  he  is 
speaking  of  God  as  not  only  His  Father  but  His  God 
— having  reference  doubtless  to  “ the  days  of  His 
flesh”  (Heb  5^),  that  is  to  say,  to  His  humiliation.^ 
No  other  titles  are  applied  to  our  Lord  in  this  Epistle, 
except  that  in  2“^  He  is  spoken  of  as  ‘ the  Shepherd 
and  Bishop  of  our  souls,’  and  at  5^’^  as  ‘ Chiei, Shepherd,’ 
modes_of  description  in  which  the  soteriological  rather 
than  the  ontological  element  is  prominent. 

In  comparison  with  i Peter,  2 Peter  makes  use  of 
more  elaborate  designations  in  speaking  of  Christ. 
2 Peter  and  simple  ‘ Jesus  ’ not 

the  Deity  occur  in  this  Epistle,  but  not  even  the 
of  Our  Lord  simple  ‘ Christ  ’ : and  the  less  complex 
compound  ‘ Jesus  Christ  ’ occurs  in  its  simplicity  only 
once — in  the  formality  of  the  address.  The  simple 
‘ Lord,’  on  the  other  hand,  seems  to  be  used  of  Christ 
in  a few  cases  (38-9,10,15^^10  ^ number  of  more  or 

8Cf.  Hort  in  loc.,  p.  30,  who  has  a long,  analytical  discussion  of  it. 
9 Cf.  Bigg  in  loc. 

Bigg  on  39 : “The  Lord  is  certainly  Christ”;  on  31^:  “‘Our 
Lord  ’ must  undoubtedly  signify  Christ,  to  whom  alone  the  doxology  in 
verse  18  is  addressed.”  Less  decidedly,  Sven  Herner,  op.  cit.,  pp.  44,  45: 
“ 2 Peter  has  some  passages  about  which,  in  our  opinion,  no  clear  de- 
cision can  be  come  to.  According  to  3^  seq.  scornful  mockers  shall  come 
and  say,  ‘Where  is  the  promise  of  His  coming?’  It  is  almost  the  uni- 
versal judgment  that  the  reference  here  is  to  the  coming  of  Christ. 
Against  the  scorn  of  the  mockers  the  Apostle  suggests  that  a day  with 
our  Lord  is  as  a thousand  years  (v.  8),  and  therefore  there  can  be  no 
talk  of  slackness.  The  Lord  is  not  slack  with  His  promise,  but  is  long- 
suffering  to  us-ward  and  not  willing  that  any  should  perish  (v.  9). 


The  Catholic  Epistles  269 

less  sonorous  combinations  of  it  occur:  ‘Jesus  our 
Lord’  (i“),  ‘our  Lord  Jesus  Christ’  ‘the 

Lord  and  Saviour’  (3^),  ‘ our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ’  2“®  3^^),  with  the  last  of  which  may  be 
connected  the  great  phrase  ‘ our  God  and  Saviour, 
Jesus  Christ’  (i^).  Two  things  that  are  notable  in 
this  list  of  designations  are  the  repeated  use  of 
‘ Saviour  ’ of  our  Lord,  and  the  clear  note  of  deity 
which  is  struck  in  their  ascriptions.  ‘ Saviour  ’ itself 
Is  a divine  appellation  transferred  to  Christ  to  whom 
It  is  applied  fifteen  times  out  of  the  twenty-three  In 
which  it  occurs  in  the  New  Testament.  In  2 Peter 

The  day  of  the  Lord,  however,  will  come  as  a thief  (v.  lo).  In  verse 
15  the  course  of  thought  in  verse  9 is  repeated,  and  the  reader  is  ex- 
horted to  account  the  long-suffering  of  the  Lord  salvation.  This  inter- 
pretation has  in  its  favor  that  the  expression  ‘our  Lord’  (v.  15)  can 
be  referred  to  Christ.  Apart  from  Rev  4I1  (2  Tim  i^)  it  is  the 

constant  rule  in  the  N.  T.  and  in  thisTpistle  (12,8.11,14,16  320  3I8)  that 
the  pronoun  ijfimv  is  adjoined  to  xupco?  only  when  xupw?  refers 
to  Christ;  and  already  on  this  ground  xopio<$  in  v.  15  can  scarcely 
designate  God.  The  declaration  in  v.  8 that  a day  with  the  Lord  is  as  a 
thousand  years,  causes  no  great  difficulty,  since  it  is  no  unwonted  occur- 
rence in  the  N.  T.  that  a statement  made  of  Lord  Jehovah  is  referred 
to  Lord  Christ,  wholly  apart  from  the  circumstance  that  the  statement 
in  question  is  scarcely  an  Old  Test,  citation.  On  the  other  hand,  our 
explanation  is  rendered  uncertain  by  the  expression  in  v.  12,  ‘the 
coming  of  the  day  of  God.’  Since  v.  12  speaks  of  ‘the  day  of  God,’ 
‘ the  day  of  the  Lord  ’ is  commonly  explained  in  connection  with  it ; 
and  as  ultimate  result  there  emerges  that  nothing  assured  can  be  at- 
tained concerning  the  meaning  of  38,9,10,15^” 

Cf.  Isaiah  43^1,  “ I,  even  I,  am  the  Lord  and  beside  me  there  is 
no  Saviour”;  Is  43^,  “The  Holy  One  of  Israel,  thy  Saviour,”  cf.  45i5’2i 
4926  60^6  63®,  Jer  14®,  “O  thou  hope  of  Israel,  the  Saviour  thereof  in 
time  of  trouble;  Hos  13^,  “Beside  me  there  is  no  Saviour”  (cf.  i Sam 
10^9  14®®,  2 Sam  22®,  Ps  7^®  17'^  io62^).  But  cf.  Is  19®®  where  the 
Lord  promises  to  send  “a  Saviour  and  a mighty  one”:  and  such  pas- 
sages as  Judges  3®*^^,  where  the  Saviour  sent  is  a man  raised  up  by 
God  for  the  purpose  (cf.  Judges  6®®,  2 Kings  13®,  Neh  9®).  The  O.  T. 
term  for  Saviour  is  the  Hiphal  participle  of  viz.,  )i^\0 


270  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

it  occurs  five  times,  always  of  Christ,  and  never  alone, 
but  always  coupled  under  a single  article  with  another 
designation,  and  so  forming  a solemn  formula.  In 
this  respect  the  two  phrases,  ‘ our  Lord  and  Saviour 
Jesus  Christ’  2-*^  3^®)  and  ‘our  God  and  Saviour 
Jesus  Christ’  (i^)  are  perfectly  similar  and  must 
stand  or  fall  together.  Not  only,  however,  is  the  deity 
of  our  Lord  openly  asserted  in  the  direct  naming  of 
Him  here  ‘ our  God  and  Saviour.’^^  It  is  almost  equally 
clearly  asserted  in  the  parallel  phrase,  ‘ our  Lord  and 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ.’  And  it  is  implied  in  the  con- 
junction of  ‘ God  ’ and  ‘ Jesus  our  Lord  ’ in  as  co- 
objects of  saving  knowledge  (cf.  2“^  3^^),  and  in 
the  ascription  to  ‘ our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ’ 
of  an  eternal  Kingdom  Besides  these  designa- 

tions, our  Lord  is  called  by  Peter,  as  .by  Jude  (4), 
our  ‘ Master  ’ (dsaTrori^^)  with  the  same  high  impli- 
cations (2^)  and  the  declaration  of  God  the  Father 
at  the  transfiguration  that  He  is  ‘ God’s  ^n,’  ‘ God’s 
Beloved,’  is  cited  (i^^)  with  profound  and  reverential 
satisfaction.^^ 

Perhaps  nothing  is  more  notable  in  the  designations 
of  our  Lord  in  these  Epistles — James,  Jude,  i Peter, 
John’s  Epistles  ^ Peter, — than  the  dropping  out  of 
and  ‘the  sight  of  the  title  ‘Son  of  God.’  Only 

Son  of  God.’  ij^  single  passage  in  2 Peter  in  which 

That  the  passage  is  to  be  taken  so  is  convincingly  argued  by 
Spitta,  von  Soden,  and  especially  Bigg.  Cf.  Lightfoot  on  i Clem  2, 
where  some  of  the  patristic  parallels  are  noted. 

The  phrase  “eternal  Kingdom”  Is  found  here  only  in  the  N.  T. ; 
but  cf.  Mart.  Polyc.,  20,  Clem.  Horn.,  viii.  23 ; x.  25 ; xiii.  20,  etc. 

1^  Spitta,  von  Soden,  etc.  (cf.  Wetstein)  take  the  ^e(T7ror7^9  here 
of  God  the  Father;  Mayor  hesitates.  But  cf.  above  on  Jude  4. 

15  Cf.  the  statement  of  the  christology  of  the  Epistle  by  Bigg,  p.  235. 


271 


The  Catholic  Epistles 

the  testimony  of  the  Father  in  the  transfiguration  scene 
Is  appealed  to,  is  the  term  ‘ Son  ’ applied  to  Jesus  at 
all.  The  case  is  very  different  in  the  Johannine  Epis- 
tles. Of  them  the  application  to  Jesus  of  the  title 
‘ Son  of  God,’  in  one  form  or  another,  is  preeminently 
characteristic.^®  He  is  called.  Indeed,  simply  ‘ Jesus  ’ 
(i  Jno  2^“  4^  4^^  5^),  and  ‘Christ’  without  adjunct 
(i  Jno  [2“^  2 Jno  9)  ; and  also  ‘Jesus  Christ’ 

(i  Jno  4^  [4^^]  5®,  2 Jno  7)  ; and  even  ‘Jesus  Christ 
the  Righteous’  (i  Jno  2^)  and  He  is  described  in 
the  great  phrases  ‘Word  of  Life’  (i  Jno  i^),  ‘Ad- 
vocate with  the  Father’  (2^),  ‘ Saviour  of  the  World’ 
(4^^).  But  the  favorite  designations  applied  to  Him 
In  these  Epistles  emphasize  His  divine  Sonship.  The 
most  common  formula  employed  Is  the  simple  ‘ Son  * 
standing  In  correlation  with  God  or  the  Father  ( i 
Jno  4'®’''  ^9,10,11,12^  2 Jno  9)  ; but  the  full 

form  ‘ Son  of  God  ’ occurs  also  with  some  frequency 
( I Jno  3®  4^®  ^5,12,13,20^  quite  a variety  of  ex- 

panded phrases  appear  by  Its  side,  such  as  ‘ God’s  only 
begotten  Son’  (i  Jno  4^,  cf.  5^®),  ‘Jesus,  God’s  Son’ 
( I Jno  i”^) , ‘ God’s  Son,  Jesus  Christ  ’ ( i Jno  3^^ 

16  Cf.  Westcott,  Epistles  of  St.  John,  p.  131;  “The  title  ‘the  Son’  in 
various  forms  is  eminently  characteristic  of  the  first  and  second  Epis- 
tles, in  which  it  occurs  24  (or  25)  times  (22  or  234-2),  which  is  more 
times  than  in  all  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul.” 

In  these  two  passages  ‘ the  Christ  ’ is  an  appellative. 

16  The  designation  ‘ Lord  ’ does  not  occur  in  these  Epistles.  Cf. 
Westcott,  Epistles  of  St.  John,  p.  131:  “It  is  remarkable  that  the  title 
‘Lord’  (xbpio<;)  is  not  found  in  the  Epistles  (not  2 Jno  3).  It 
occurs  in  the  narrative  of  the  Gospel,  and  is  frequent  in  the  Apoca- 
lypse. It  occurs  also  in  all  the  other  Epistles  of  the  N.  T.  except  that 
to  Titus.  The  absence  of  the  title  may  perhaps  be  explained  by  the 
general  view  of  the  relation  of  Christ  to  the  believer  which  is  given 
in  the  Epistles.  The  central  thought  is  that  of  fellowship.” 


272  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

5-®),  ‘Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  Father’  (2  Jno  3). 
By  means  of  this  constant  designation  of  Jesus  as  ‘ the 
Son  of  God,’  John  keeps  before  his  readers  His  divine 
dignity.  He  is  not  of  the  world,  but  has  come  Into 
the  world  (5“®)  upon  a mission,  to  destroy  all  that  is 
evil  (5®)  and  to  save  the  world  (i'^  5^),  where- 

unto  He  was  sent  (4®’^^’^^),  that  all  might  have  life 
In  Him  (55,12,15^  . QqJ  given  unto  us  eternal 
life  and  this  life  Is  In  ‘ the  Son,’  so  that  He  who  hath 
‘ the  Son  ’ hath  the  life  . So  closely  Is  He  asso- 

ciated with  God  the  Father  (i^  3^^)  that  to  deny  Him 
is  to  deny  the  Father  (2^^)  and  to  confess  Him  is  to 
confess  the  Father  (2“^  4^^)  and  to  abide  In  Him  Is  to 
abide  In  the  Father  (2“^  cf.  i^).  Obviously  to  John 
the  ‘Son  of  God’  Is  Himself  God;  and  what  is  thus 
Implied  In  the  current  use  of  this  title  Is  openly  de- 
clared at  the  close  of  the  Epistle,  where  of  ‘ the  Son  of 
God,  Jesus  Christ  ’ It  Is  solemnly  affirmed,  “ This  is 
the  True  God  and  Eternal  Life”  (5“^). 

In  this  remarkable  concluding  paragraph  the  Apostle 
Is  encouraging  his  readers  In  view  of  the  sin  which  Is 
In  the  world  and  which  they  feel  to  be 
‘True^God*  working  in  themselves.  “We  know,” 
says  he,  “ that  every  one  who  has  been 
begotten  of  God  ” — that  Is  to  say,  every  truly  Christian 
man,  who  has  been  born  of  the  Spirit — “ sinneth  not  ” : 
not  because  he  has  of  himself  power  to  preserve  himself 
pure,  but  because  “ He  that  was  begotten  of  God  ” — 
that  Is  to  say,  God’s  own  Son,  Jesus  Christ — “ keepeth 
him  and  the  evil  one  toucheth  him  not.”  This  is  but  the 
Johannine  way  of  saying  what  Peter  says  In  his  way  when 
he  assures  his  readers  that  Christians  “ are  guarded  by 
the  power  of  God  through  faith  unto  a salvation  ready 


273 


The  Catholic  Epistles 

to  be  revealed  in  the  last  time”  (i  P i^).  But  John 
proceeds  with  his  encouraging  message.  “We  know,” 
he  adds,  “ that  we  are  of  God  and  the  whole  world 
lieth  in  the  evil  one.  And  we  know  that  the  Son  of  God 
Is  come  and  hath  given  us  an  understanding,  that  we 
know  Him  that  is  true,  and  we  are  in  Him  that  is  true, 
In  His  Son  Jesus  Christ.”  God  is  He  that  Is  true; 
and  what  Is  said  Is  that  If  we  are  In  His  Son  Jesus 
Christ,  we  are  In  God.  Why?  Because  Jesus  Christ 
Himself,  being  His  Son,  Is  Himself  just  this  God  that 
Is  true;  and  therefore  It  is  just  this  that  the  Apostle 
adds:  “This  Is,”  he  says  with  the  emphatic  de- 

monstrative,— this  is  the  True  God  and  Life 
Eternal”  (5^^).  The  upshot  of  the  whole  matter, 
then.  Is  that  those  who  are  In  Jesus  Christ  need  have 
no  fear  in  the  midst  of  the  temptations  of  earth:  for 
to  be  In  Jesus  Christ  Is  to  be  In  the  only  real  God,  since 
Jesus  Himself  Is  this  ‘ Real  God,’  and  as  such  ‘ Eternal 
Life.’ 

Here,  then,  are  two  new  descriptive  epithets  applied 
to  Jesus,  as  the  ‘ Son  of  God.’  He  is  ‘ Eternal  Life,’ 
— which  recalls  the  figurative  designation  of  Him  as 
‘the  Life’  In  the  Gospel  of  John  (14^  cf. 

I Jno  cf.  I Jno  2^).  And  He  is  ‘the  True,’  ‘the 
Real,  God,’  the  God  who  corresponds  In  every  respect 
to  the  Idea  of  God,  who  Is  what  God  ought  to  be  and 
Is.  There  Is  “ only  one  true  God,”  John  quotes  his 
Master  as  declaring  (Jno  17^),  to  know  whom  is 
eternal  life:  and  now  he  tells  us  that  Jesus  Christ,  be- 
cause the  ‘ Son  ’ of  this  only  true  God,  Is  Himself  this 
‘ True  God  ’ and  this  ‘ Eternal  Llfe.’^®  He  then  who 

For  the  exposition  of  this  passage  see  especially  Weiss  (Meyer, 
1900),  pp.  160,  i6i.  But  on  the  clause,  “He  that  is  begotten  of  God,” 
see  Westcott,  p.  185,  column  1. 


274  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

IS  in  Him  is  in  ‘ the  True  God  ’ and  has  ‘ the  Eternal 
Life, — ‘ the  Eternal  Life  ’ that  was  in  the  Father  and 
has  been  manifested  in  His  ‘ Son  Jesus  Christ,’  and  is 
now  declared  by  the  Apostle  in  order  that  his  readers, 
too,  may  enter  into  that  fellowship  which  he  was  him- 
self enjoying  “with  the  Father  and  with  His  Son 
Jesus  Christ”  (i^).  The  Epistles  of  John,  also,  thus 
culminate  not  only  in  calling  Christ  ‘ God,’  but  in  so 
calling  Him  ‘ God  ’ as  to  throw  out  into  emphasis 
that  He  is  all  that  God  is.  James  calls  Him  ‘ the 
Glory  ’ : Peter  ‘ the  great  God  ’ : Paul  ‘ God  over 
all  ’ : John  ‘ t^  Real  God.’^®  It  was  because  he  so  con- 
ceived Jesus  as  God’s  unique  Son  (i  Jno  4®)  that  John 
is  able  to  speak  of  the  fo-rgiveness  of  sins  “ through  His 
Name”  (i  Jno  2^“),  and  of  faith  “in  His  Name” 
securing  eternal  life  (5^^,  cf.  3^^),  and  even  (3  Jno  7) 
of  the  whole  Christian  course  turning  on  loyalty  to 
‘ the  Name,’ — that  is,  obviously,  Jesus’  Name, — 
without  further  definition.  Clearly,  to  him,  ‘ the 
Name  of  Jesus  ’ was  the  Name  that  is  above  every 
name.^^ 

Even  a rapid  glance  like  this  over  the  designations 
applied  to  Christ  in  the  Epistles  written  by  Christ’s 
How  Our  Lord’s  companions  will  suffice  to 

Companions  show  that  the  estimate  put  upon  His 
Thought  of  Him  personality  by  Paul  has  nothing  in  it 
peculiar  to  that  writer.  There  may  meet  us,  as  we 
pass  from  Epistle  to  Epistle,  varying  methods  of  giv- 
ing expression  to  the  faith  common  to  all:  but  it  is 
common  to  all  to  look  upon  Jesus  Christ  as  a divine 

20  Dr.  Westcott  in  an  additional  note  on  i Jno  322^  p.  129  seq.,  gives 
a careful  study  of  the  names  of  our  Lord  in  i John.  Cf.  also  p.  189 
seq.,  where  he  discusses  the  term  ‘ the  Christ.’ 

21  Cf.  Westcott,  Epistles  of  St.  John,  pp.  129  and  232. 


The  Catholic  Epistles 


275 


person.  So  far  as  appears  it  did  not  occur  to  anyone  in 
the  primitive  Christian  community  to  put  a lower  es- 
timate upon  His  personality  than  that;  and  writer 
vies  with  writer  only  in  his  attempts  to  give  his  faith 
in  his  divine  Redeemer  clear  and  emphatic  expression. 
If  there  was  a more  primitive  conception  than  this  of 
Jesus’  dignity  it  had  died  away  and  left  no  trace  be- 
hind it  before  the  Christian  community  found  a voice 
for  itself.  Whether  that  can  be  conceived  to  have 
happened  in  the  course  of  the  few  years  which  inter- 
vened between  the  public  career  and  death  of  Jesus 
and  the  rise  of  a Christian  literature, — say,  in  James, 
— or,  say,  in  Paul, — or,  say,-  in  the  evangelic  docu- 
ments,— each  one  must  judge  for  himself.  But  in  seek- 
ing to  form  an  opinion  on  this  matter,  it  should  be 
borne  in  mind  that  there  intervened  only  a very  brief, 
period  indeed  between  the  death  of  Christ  and  the 
beginnings  of  Christian  literature:  that  much  of  this 
literature  credibly  represents  itself  as  the  product  of 
actual  companions  of  our  Lord:  and  that  it  was  all 
written  in  the  presence  of  su*ch  companions,  reflecli 
their  opinions,  and  was  published  under  their  eye.JXhat 
absolutely  no  trace  of  a lower  view  of  the  person  of 
Christ  is  discernible  in  any  portion  of  this  literature 
seems  in  these  circumstances  not  only  a valid  sugges- 
tion but  a convincing  proof  that  no  such  lower  view 
had  been  prevalent  in  the  Christian  community:  that, 
in  a word,  the  followers  of  Jesus  must  be  supposed  to 
have  been  heartily  convinced  of  His  deity  from  the  very 
beginning. 


THE  WITNESS  OF  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE 
HEBREWS 


The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  enters  no  claim  to  be 
the  composition  of  one  of  our  Lord’s  immediate  follow- 
ers. Neither  does  it  represent  the  thought  of  a period 
antedating  the  composition  of  the  Epistles  of  Paul. 
It  synchronizes  in  its  date  rather  with  that  of  the  later 
half  of  these  Epistles  (c.  A.  D.  64).  It  comes  to  us 
like  its  own  Melchizedek,  “ without  father,  without 
mother,  without  genealogy,”  bearing  its  own  independ- 
ent witness  to  how  Jesus  was  thought  and  spoken  of 
by  the  Christian  community  in  the  seventh  decade  of 
the  first  Christian  century;  or,  at  least,  by  a special 
and  very  interesting  group  of  Christians  living  at  that 
time,  made  up  of  those  Jews  who  had  seen  in  Jesus  the 
promised  Messiah  and  accepted  Him  as  their  longed-for 
Redeemer. 

In  the  designations  it  applies  to  our  Lord  in  gen- 
eral, this  Epistle  reflects,  of  course,  the  usage  of  the 
first  age  of  the  Church,  which  has  al- 
ready  been  observed  in  the  other  Epis- 
tles: but  equally  of  course  not  without 
its  own  peculiarities.  As  in  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  the 
most  frequently  occurring  of  the  simple  designations 
is  ‘Christ’  5"  6'  911.14,24,28  JJ26)  1 'The  simple 

‘ Jesus,’  however,  is  employed  relatively  much  more 


1 ‘ Christ  ’ is  used  everywhere  as  a proper  name — even  when  it  has 
the  article:  cf.  Davidson,  Ep.  to  the  Heb.,  73,  note  1.  In  some  passages 
the  term  ^ Son  ’ is  almost  or  quite  a proper  name : cf . Riehm  272,  Da- 
vidson, loc,  cit.,  note  2. 


Witness  of  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  277 

frequently  than  in  Paul’s  letters  (2^  3^  6^*^  7^^ 
1019  j 22,24  1312^  . j|.  occurs  almost  as  frequently, 
indeed,  as  ‘ Christ.’  Neither  is , however,  a com- 
mon title  in  Hebrews  (nine  and  eight  times  re- 
spectively), nor  is  the  compound  title  ‘Jesus  Christ,’ 
which  occurs  three  times  (10^^  13®’^^) j while  ‘Lord 
Jesus’  (13“^)  and  ‘Jesus  the  Son  of  God’  (4^^)  each 
occurs  once.  The  simple  ‘ Lord  ’ also  is  only  occa- 
sionally applied  to  our  Lord  ( 2^  7^“*  [12^^])  ; and 
no  combinations  of  it  with  other  designations  occur 
at  all,  except,  as  we  have  already  intimated,  the  phrase 
‘ our  Lord  Jesus  ’ is  once  met  with  ( 13^^)  It  is  notice- 
able that  in  two  of  the  three  instances  in  which  the  term 
‘Lord’  is  employed  of  Christ  2^)  it  is  used  in 
order  to  throw  into  prominence  His  superangelic  dig- 
nity. The  peculiarity  of  Hebrews  is  manifested  in  the 
free  use  it  makes  of  the  two  designations,  ‘ the  Son  ’ 

(j2,5,5,8  ^6  ^5,8  ^28)^  i o£  1 

(4^^  6®  7^  10^^),  and  ‘the  (or  our)  High  Priest’ 
(2^^  3^  4^^’^^  5^^  6^^  7^®  8^  9^^)  or  simply  ‘ Priest’  (5® 
y3.ii, [15], 17.21  10“^),  which  form  respectively  the 

favorite  ontological  and  the  favorite  soteriological  des- 
ignations of  Christ  in  this  Epistle. 

It  is  chiefly  by  means  of  and  in  connection  with  the 
title  ‘Son’  that  this  Epistle  (in  this,  like  the  Epistles 
^ , of  John)  gives  expression  to  its  concep- 

Jesus’  Humanityt^o^  our  Lords  person.  There  is 
no  lack  of  recognition  of  the  humanity 
of  our  Lord.  Indeed,  nowhere  else  in  the  New  Testa- 

2Cf.  Sven  Herner,  op.  cit,  p.  41:  “The  usage  by  which  xbpio^s  is 
applied  to  Christ  is  not  alien  to  Hebrews.  We  meet  once  (13^®)  with 
the  designation  ‘our  Lord  Jesus’:  and  at  we  read  ‘that  the  Lord 
springs  from  Judah.’  In  ji®  God  is  represented  as  saying  to  Christ, 
‘Xhou,  Lord,  hast  laid  the  foundations  of  the  earth,’  and  speaks  of 


278  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

ment  do  we  find  the  reality  and  the  completeness  of 
His  humanity  so  fully  expounded  and  so  strongly  In- 
sisted upon.®  But  It  Is  the  transcendent  conception  of 
Christ,  which  looks  upon  Him  as  ‘ the  Son  of  God,’ 
clothed  with  all  the  attributes  of  God,  that  gives  Its 
whole  tone  to  the  Epistle.^  The  keynote  is  struck  in 
the  very  opening  verses,  where  our  Lord  is  set  as 
‘ Son  ’ in  contrast  not  merely  with  the  prophets,  the 
greatest  representatives  of  God  on  earth,  but  also  with 
the  angels,  the  highest  of  creatures.  All  these  are 
servants  of  God : He  is  His  ‘ Son,’  through  whom  no 
doubt  God  works  (i“),  but  as  one  works  through  a 
fellow  In  whom  He  Is  reduplicated;  and  whom  He 
addresses  by  the  great  names  peculiar  to  Himself, 

‘ God  ’ ( i^)  and — Its  equivalent  here — ‘ Lord  ’ ( 2^) . 

That  It  is  what  Is  called  the  metaphysical  Sonship, 
which  Is  here  attributed  to  our  Lord  Is  obvious  In 
^ itself  and  Is  put  beyond  all  doubt  by  the 

Son’ is  description  which  Is  given  of  Him  as 

‘ Son.’^  In  this  description  there  are  as- 
signed to  Him  divine  works.  In  eternity  and  In  time: 
the  creation  of  the  world  and  the  upholding  of  the 

the  salvation  which  the  Lord  has  announced.  Finally  Hebrews  has  a 
passage  where  we  cannot  decisively  pronounce  whether  xupto<^  refers 
to  God  or  to  Christ,  . . . (12^^).” 

3 Cf.  Riehm,  Der  Lekrhegriff  des  Hebrderhrlefes,  1867,  p.  271. 
“ We  shall  see  that  the  author  emphasizes  the  true  humanity  of  Jesus 
more  than  is  found  in  any  other  N.  T.  book.”  Accordingly,  cf.  §§36, 
37»  38,  39>  for  details. 

^ Cf.  Riehm,  pp.  270,  271 : “ He  sees  in  Christ  above  all  the  Son  of 
God  in  the  eminent  sense  of  that  word.” 

^ Cf.  Riehm,  op.  cit.,  p.  276 : “ There  is  already  contained  in  what  has 
been  said  the  solution  of  the  second  question  which  we  were  to  deal 
with  in  this  paragraph — the  question,  namely,  whether  the  uniquely 
intimate  relation  of  Christ  to  God,  which  is  designated  by  the  name  of 


Witness  of  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  279 

universe.  But  the  most  striking  element  of  it  tells  us 
rather  what  the  ‘ Son  ’ is  than  what  He  had  done  or  is 
yet  to  do.  He  is,  we  are  told,  “ the  effulgence  of  God’s 
glory  and  the  very  image  of  His  substance  ” — which 
seems  to  be  only  a rich  and  suggestive  way  of  saying, 
to  put  it  briefly,  that  the  ‘ Son,’  as  ‘ Son,’  is  just  God’s 
fellow.  He  is  the  repetition  of  God’s  glory:  the  re- 
iteration of  His  substance.  By  the  “ glory  of  God” 
is  meant  here  just  the  divine  nature  itself,  apprehended 
in  its  splendor:  and  by  its  “effulgence”  is  meant  not 
a reflection,  but,  so  to  speak,  a reduplication  of  it. 
The  ‘ Son  ’ is  just  God  over  again  in  the  glory  of  His 
majesty.®  Similarly  by  the  “ substance  ” of  God  is 
meant,  not  His  bare  essence,  but  His  whole  nature,  with 
all  its  attributes;  and  by  “the  very  image  ” is  meant 
a correspondence  as  close  as  that  which  an  impression 
gives  back  to  a seal : the  ‘ Son  ’ of  God  in  no  single 
trait  in  the  least  differs  from  God.*^  In  a word,  what  is 

Son,  is  an  ethico-religlous  or  a metaphysical  one.  Since  this  name  be- 
longs to  Christ  on  account  of  His  pretemporal  relation  to  God,  the 
notion  ‘ Son  of  God  ’ is  plainly  in  the  first  instance  a metaphysical  one. 
, , . An  unprejudiced  exposition  of  the  relative  passages  must  lead 
to  the  conclusion  that  according  to  the  doctrine  of  the  author,  it  is  pre- 
cisely the  metaphysical  attributes  which  are  attributed  to  Christ  in 
j2  seq,  that  make  Him  the  ‘ Son  of  God.’  ” 

®Riehm  offers  this  illustration  to  clarify  the  notion  of  djzabyaaiia', 
“ Should  all  the  light  which  proceeds  from  the  sun  be  united  again  in 
a second  body  of  light,  which  radiates  it  out  again  a second  time,  there 
would  be  an  aizabyaffiia  of  the  sun  in  the  sense  in  which  the  author 
has  used  the  word  here.  All  the  rays  of  the  manifold  divine  glory 
unite  again  in  the  Son,  in  order  in  Him,  joined  together  in  a new  glori- 
ous Light-Being,  to  present  the  divine  glory  a second  time  and  to  make 
it  through  this  second  presentation  visible  even  to  the  creature”  (p.  288), 
Cf.  also  Davidson  in  loc.,  who  judiciously  echoes  Riehm. 

Cf.  Riehm,  op.  cit,  p.  284:  “What  the  writer  wishes  is  to  empha- 
size in  this  second  predicate  that  the  nature  of  the  Son  corresponds 
precisely  with  the  nature  of  the  Father;  that  there  is  no  trait  in  the 


2 8o  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

given  to  us  in  the  ‘ Son  ’ is  here  declared  to  be  God  as 
‘ Son  ’ standing  over  against  God  as  ‘ Father.’® 

It  can  cause  no  surprise,  therefore,  when  the  author 
declares  that  it  was  of  the  ‘ Son  ’ that  God®  was  speak- 
ing in  the  Psalm  (45®),  when  He  said. 
His  Deity  “ Thy  throne,  O God,  is  forever  and 
ever.”  This  is  only  to  apply  directly  to 
the  ‘ Son  ’ the  name  which  is  in  the  whole  discussion 
implied  to  be  His:  for  undoubtedly  the  very  point 
of  the  whole  argument  is  to  the  effect  that  Jesus  Christ 
as  the  ‘ Son  of  God  ’ stands  infinitely  above  every  crea- 
ture just  because  He  is  ‘ God  ’ Himself.^®  We  may 
leave  undecided  the  question  whether  or  no  the  dox- 
ology  at  the  close  of  the  Epistle  is  to  be  referred  to 
Christ,  treated  here  as  the  God  He  is  recognized 

nature  of  the  Father  which  does  not  find  itself  in  perfection  also  in  the 
nature  of  the  Son,  and  vice  versa''  Of  the  whole,  he  says  (pp.  284-5)  • 
“ The  Son  is  then,  according  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Ep.  to  the  Heb.,  an 
independently  existing  Divine  Person,  whose  substance  is  not  created 
by  God,  but  has  proceeded  out  of  the  glory  of  the  Father’s  nature;  a 
Divine  Person  to  whom  in  consequence  the  same  glorious  nature  be- 
longs, so  that  every  attribute  of  the  Father  repeats  itself  in  the  Son, 
and  every  attribute  of  the ^Son  repeats  itself  in  the  Father;  so  that 
through  the  Son  the  whole  nature  of  God  is  completely  revealed.” 
Cf.  the  long  “ Note  on  the  Son  ” in  Davidson’s  Commentary,  pp.  73-79. 

® It  is  noticeable,  however,  that  God  is  not  called  ‘Father’  as  over 
against  the  ‘ Son  ’ in  this  Epistle.  Cf.  Riehm,  op.  cit.,  p.  272 : “ As  the 
author  so  frequently  designates  Christ  as  the  Son  of  God,  it  is  some- 
what remarkable  that  he  only  a single  time  and  that  in  a citation  from 
the  O.  T.  (i®)  calls  God  the  Father  of  Christ.” 

^ For  this  is  the  significance  of  the  formulas  of  citation  to  which  1* 
goes  back. 

10  So  Delitzsch,  in  loc.  (E.  T.,  p.  76) : “ The  very  point  of  the  argu- 
ment for  the  superiority  of  the  Son  above  the  angels,  drawn  from  Ps 
45'’’  and  foil.,  lies  surely  in  the  fact  that  He  is  here  twice,  or  at  least 
once,  addressed  in  the  vocative  as  6 6e6<s,’*  Hofmann  and  even 
Riehm  are  unnecessarily  subtle  here. 


28i 


Witness  of  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 

throughout  the  Epistle  as  being.  Certainly  there  is 
no  reason  why  this  author  should  not  have  ascribed 
“ eternal  glory  ” to  the  Being  he  had  described  as  in 
His  very  nature  “ the  effulgence  of  the  divine  glory, 
and  for  that  very  reason  it  may  be  a matter  of  indif- 
ference to  us  whether  he  has  done  so  or  not.  Nor  Is 
much  added  to  this  picture  of  the  divine  Christ  by  his 
designation  of  Him,  without  qualification,  as  ‘ the 
Firstborn  ’ (i®),  or  by  his  noticing  that  God  has  “ ap- 
pointed Him  Heir  of  all  things”  (i^).  ‘Firstborn’ 
and  ‘ Heir  ’ are  little  more  than  specially  honorific  ways 
of  saying  ‘ Son.’  God’s  ‘ Firstborn  ’ as  such  takes 
rank  above  all  other  existing  beings:  even  all  of  the 
angels  shall  do  Him  reverence.  God’s  ‘ Firstborn  ’ 
is  also  naturally  God’s  ‘ Heir,’  an  heir  whose  Inher- 
itance embraces  the  universe,  and  whose  tenure 
stretches  to  eternity.  All  these  declarations  are  bound 
very  closely  together  in  their  common  relation  to  the 
fundamental  conception  of  our  Lord’s  divine  Sonship; 
and  constitute  Items  by  the  mention  of  which  the  con- 
tents of  the  Idea  of  Sonship  are  developed.  The  state- 
ments of  the  opening  verses  of  the  Epistle  seem  to  be 
arranged  In  a sort  of  climax  by  means  of  which  the 
glory  of  the ' New  Covenant,  revealed  in  the  ‘ Son,’ 
is  more  and  more  enhanced.  The  glory  of  the  New 
Covenant  Is  that  It  has  been  Introduced  by  God  the 
‘ Son  ’ — that  ‘ Son  ’ who,  despite  His  lowly  manifesta- 

iiRiehm  says  (p.  286):  “Still  how  can  it  occasion  surprise  that  the 
author  in  1321  praises  Jesus  Christ  with  the  doxology,  & i)  do^a  e£9 
rob?  aiwva?,  which,  according  to  O.  T.  notions,  is  due  to  Jehovah 
only,  but  in  the  N.  T.  passages  is  also  transferred  to  Christ?  It  is 
recognized  by  all  recent  commentators  that  the  relative  (w)  refers  to 
Christ  and  not  to  God.”  So  also  Bleek,  Lunemann,  Maier,  Kurtz, 
Lowrie:  contra,  Delitzsch:  non  liquet,  Davidson. 


282 


The  Designations  of  Oiir  Lord 


tion  on  earth,  has  been  appointed  heir  of  all  things, — 
that  is.  Lord  of  all : by  whom,  indeed,  the  worlds  were 
made  in  the  depths  of  eternity, — that  is,  who  Is  the 
eternal  Creator  of  all  that  is : who,  in  fact,  is  in  Him- 
self the  effulgence  of  God’s  glory  and  the  impress  of 
His  substance — that  is  to  say,  all  that  God  is:  and  by 
whom,  because  He  is  all  that_God  Is,  .the  universe  Is 
held  In  being. 

It  is  particularly  noticeable  that  at  this  precise  point 
a mention  of  Christ’s  propitiatory  work  is  introduced. 

. This  ‘ Son  of  God,’  whose  dignity  has 

been  thus  expounded,  “ made  purifica- 
tion of  sins.”  The  soteriological  inter- 
est is  present,  therefore,  even  in  this  ontological 
passage,  and  it  is  the  joteriological  interest,  indeed, 
which  gives  its  importance  to  this  ontological  discus- 
sion in  the  eyes  of  the  writer.  The  soteriological  titles 
by  which  he  designates  our  Lord  are  therefore  nat- 
urally as  rich  as  the  ontological  ones.  He  is  ‘ the  Me- 
diator of  the  New  Covenant  ’ (8^  9^^  12^^)  : He  is  the 
Ground  of  eternal  Salvation  (5^)  : He  is  ‘the  Author 
of  Salvation  ’ (2^^,  cf.  Acts  3^^  5^^)  : He  is  ‘ the  Author 
and  Perfecter  of  our  Faith  ’ ( I2“)  : He  is  our  Forerun- 
ner into  that  which  is  within  the  veil  (6"^)  He 
Is  ‘ the  Apostle  and  High  Priest  of  our  Confes- 
sion ’ (3^)  : He  is  ‘the  Great  Shepherd  of  the  Sheep’ 

12  The  alrio<$  of  Salvation  (5^)  is  merely  He  who  is  the  Cause  or 
Producer  of  Salvation.  The  dpyr^yo'^  of  Salvation  cf.  12-)  is 

commonly  supposed  to  be  He  who  has  Himself  trodden  the  pathway 
over  which  our  feet  should  pass,  and  to  be  so  far  equivalent  to  the  Tzpo- 
dpopo<^  (6^®).  So,  e.  g.  G.  Vos  In  the  Princeton  Theological  Re^ienv, 
July,  1907,  p.  434,  who  classes  apyriycx;  and  Tzpodpopu^  together  as 
implying  identification  in  experience,  in  contrast  with  acrco<s  In  which 
this  is  not  present;  but  see  to  the  contrary,  Cremer,  ed.  3 and  subsequent 


JVitness  of  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  283 

(13-®)  : and,  above  all  (for  this  is  a favorite  concep- 
tion of  this  Epistle),  He  is  our  ‘ Priest’  (5^  ^3,11, [is], 17, 21 
[8“^]  10^^)  or  more  specifically^®  our  ‘High  Priest’ 
j ([2^^]  3^  5^^  6^®  7-®  8^  9^^).  All  these  are  great 

designations:  and  we  see  at  a glance  that  they  reflect 

in  their  substance  the  high  estimate  put  upon  our 
Lord’s  person  as  the  ‘ Son  of  God.’  It  is  only  because 
He  is  the  ‘ Son  of  God  ’ that  He  may  be  fitly  described 
in  His  saving  work  by  these  high  designations.  It  is 
i also  at  once  observable  that  the  Messanic  conception 
undedies  and  gives  form  to  them  all.  If  Jesus  is  con- 
ceived by  the  writer  of  this  Epistle  in  His  person 

i fundamentally  as  the  eternal  ‘Son  of  God’;  He  Is 

I equally  conceived  in  His  work  as  fundamentally  the 
Messiah  appointed  of  God  to  inaugurate  the  new  order 
of  things  and  to  bring  His  people  safely  into  the  ex- 
perience of  the  promised  salvation.  As  ‘ Mediator  of 
the  New  Covenant  ’ He  gives  His  life  for  the  redemption 
of  His  people,  establishing  new  relations  between  them 

i 13  Dr,  Vos  {Princeton  Theological  Review,  July,  1907,  p.  432), 

I supposes  the  use  of  the  simple  ‘ priest  ’ to  be  due  in  general  to  the 
j appeal  to  Ps.  no  (510  being  exceptional),  while  ‘High  Priest’  is  the 
j real  preference  of  the  author,  resting  on  a reference  in  his  mind  to 
j the  entrance  of  the  High  Priest  into  the  Holy  of  Holies  on  the  day  of 

! the  atonement,  which  prefigures  what  is  to  him  the  central  act  of  Christ’s 

priestly  ministry, — the  entrance  into  Heaven.  “ The  Saviour  is  a high 
! priest  because  in  the  discharge  of  His  ministry  He  enters  into  Heaven. 

I ...  The  inference  lies  near  that  the  whole  discussion  of  the  subject 
' ultimately  serves  the  purpose  of  showing  the  necessity  of  the 

heavenly  state  of  existence  of  the  Saviour.”  On  the  other  hand, 
I cf.  Davidson,  p.  147 : “ According  to  the  representation  of  the  Epistle, 

there  is  no  difference  in  principle  between  priest  and  high  priest”; 
j and  Denney,  Hastings’  B.  D.,  iv.  p.  98  a:  “In  the  New  Testament 

i it  is  only  in  the  Ep.  to  the  Hebrews  that  Jesus  is  spoken  of  as 

I fiiya?  Ispetx^  and  dp^tepeu? — terms  which  are  not  to  be  distinguished 
from  each  other,  the  last  two  only  signifying  Christ’s  eminence  in  the 
priestly  character.” 


284  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

and  God  by  means  of  His  blood.  As  the  ‘ Originator 
of  Salvation,’  He  tasted  death  for  every  man,  receiving 
in  Himself  the  penalties  due  to  them,  not  to  Him.  As 
‘ Author  and  Perfecter  of  our  faith  ’ He  endured  the 
cross,  despising  the  shamie  that  He  might  be  not  merely 
our  example,  but  our  Saviour.  As  ‘ the  Great  Shep- 
herd ’ He  laid  down  His  life  for  His  sheep.  As 
‘ the  Apostle  and  High  Priest  ’ He  is  the  One  ap- 
pointed by  God  to  make  sacrifice  of  Himself  for  the 
sins  of  the  people, — for  every  High  Priest  must  needs 
have  somewhat  to  offer,  and  this  ‘ our  High  Priest  * 
has  through  His  own  blood  obtained  eternal  redemp- 
tion for  us. 

We  see  that  the  red  thread  of  redemption  in  blood 
is  woven  Into  all  the  allusions  to  the  saving  work  of  the 
‘ Son  of  God.’  And  we  see  that  the  chief 

^‘^Priest^^  vehicle  In  this  Epistle  for  the  expression 
of  this  high  teaching  Is  the  representation 
of  our  Lord’s  work  as  priestly  in  Its  nature,  and  the  proc- 
lamation of  Him  as  ‘ the  great  High  Priest.’  The 
interest  of  this  grows  out  of  the  circumstance  that 
here  at  last  in  the  New  Testament  the  conception  of 
' 'Messiah  as  Priest  comes  to  Its  rights.  In  their  ab- 
sorption in  the  conception  of  Messiah  as  King,  the 
Jew^s  gave  scanty  hospitality  to  the  rich  suggestions  of 
the  Old  Testament  of  other  aspects  In  which  His  office 
and  work  might  be  contemplated.  It  was  characteristic 
of  Christianity,  under  the  Illumination  thrown  back 
upon  the  promise  by  Its  fulfillment,  to  gather  these 
neglected  aspects  together  and  note  their  fulfillment  In 
Christ.  Among  them  was  the  conception  of  Messiah 
as  a priest  performing  the  priestly  work  of  propitia- 
tion. There  seems  to  be  little  trace  of  the  currency  of 


J-Fitness  of  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  285 

such  a conception  among  the  Jews.  There  is  also  lit- 
tle use  made  of  it  in  other  books  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. But  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  it  is  given 
its  full  exposition;  strikingly  illustrated  from  the  same 
Psalm  which  declares  the  Messiah  David’s  Lord  not 
less  than  David’s  son, — “ Thou  art  a Priest  forever 
after  the  order  of  Melchizedek  ” ; and  made  the  ve- 
hicle for  the  inculcation  of  the  fundamental  doctrine 
of  Christianity — the  propitiatory  death  of  Jesus,  the 
reconciliation  of  God  by  His  sacrifice  of  Himself,  and 
His  eternal  intercession  for  His  people.  This  is  the 
greaC  contribution  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
to  the  apprehension  of  the  nature  of  our  Lord’s 
work.^^ 

On  the  conception  of  the  Messiah  as  Priest,  cf.  Stanton,  The 
Je<vnsh  and  Christian  Messiah,  1867,  pp.  128-9;  and  esp.  pp.  294 
seq.;  also  Hastings’  B.  D.,  iii.,  356  b:  and  cf.  Swete,  Hastings’  B.  D., 
II.,  406:  “The  Jewish  Messiah,  however,  was  chiefly  the  Anointed 
King;  the  conception  of  Messiah  as  the  Prophet  was  less  distinct,  and 
that  of  a Christ-Priest  (lepeof^  6 Lev  4^.16  522)  entirely 

wanting,  until  it  presented  itself  to  the  writer  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  (Stanton,  Jenxiish  and  Christian  Messiah,  p.  293  ff.).”  On  the 
idea  of  our  Lord’s  priesthood  see  the  “ extended  note  on  the  priesthood 
of  Christ  ” in  Davidson’s  Com.  on  Heb.,  p.  146  seq.;  and  cf.  Denney 
in  Hastings’  B.  D.,  iv,,  98  seq.,  and  especially  Vos,  as  above,  pp.  423 
seq.,  who  adduces  the  passages  which  show  that  although  the  term 
‘priest’  is  not  explicitly  applied  to  the  Messiah  by  the  Jews,  nor  to 
our  Lord  elsewhere  in  the  N.  T.,  the  idea  is  not  alien  to  either  the 
Jews  or  the  N.  T.  writers. 


THE  WITNESS  OF  THE  APOCALYPSE 


The  peculiarity  of  the  Book  of  Revelation,  as  an 
Apocalypse,  gives  It  the  superficial  appearance  of 

A Summary  Standing  apart  from  the  other  books  of 
View  o£  Early  the  New  Testament  In  a class  by  Itself. 

Conceptions  requires  little  scrutiny  of  Its  contents, 
however,  to  assure  us  that  this  Is  true  only  of  Its  form. 
In  the  matter  of  the  designations  It  applies  to  our  Lord, 
for  example,  the  cursory  reader  Is  Impressed  by  their 
novelty  and  astonished  by  the  richness  of  their  sugges- 
tion; but  on  analyzing  their  content  he  soon  discovers 
that  they  embody  In  their  splendid  phraseology  no 
other  conceptions  than  those  he  has  been  made  familiar 
with  In  the  other  books  of  the  New  Testament.  In- 
deed, there  Is  a sense  In  which  It  would  not  be  untrue 
to  say  that  the  Book  of  Revelation,  written  as  It  was 
at  the  close  of  the  first  Christian  century  (c.  A.  D. 
96),  gathers  up  Into  an  epitome  and  gives  vivid,  and 
we  may  say  even  emotional,  expression  to  the  whole 
century’s  thought  of  Jesus.  A certain  comprehensive- 
ness Is  thus  Imparted  to  Its  chrlstological  allusions 
which  has  puzzled  the  critical  student  and  been  made 
by  him  the  reproach  of  the  book  and  even  the  occasion 
of  denial  to  It  of  unity  of  composition.^  It  Is  In  truth 

1 Cf.  Holtzmann,  N.  T.  Theologie,  i.,  467:  “The  Old  Testament 
and  Jewish  conceptions  of  the  Messiah  form  no  doubt  the  fundamental 
basis  of  the  christology,  though  they  are  on  every  side  outvied  and  sur- 
mounted; so  that  such  a conglomeration  of  all  Biblical  and  even 
Jewish  strata  of  doctrine  results  as  is  wholly  without  example  else- 


The  Witness  of  the  Apocalypse 


287 


merely  a witness  to  the  unity  of  the  conception  of 
Jesus  which  characterized  the  whole  Apostolic  Church, 
finding,  indeed,  varied  expression  according  to  the 
i^syncrasy  of  each  writer,  but  remaining  through  all 
variety  of  expression  essentially  the  same. 

The  long  list  of  designations  in  which  this  concep- 
tion of  Jesus  is  at  least  in  part  embodied  in  the  Book 
of  Revelation  may  be  perhaps  somewhat 
"^Designatirns”^ '■oughly  divided  into  two  classes.  We 
say  roughly  divided  because  the  sepa- 
rating line  is  an  uncertain  one  and  the  two  classes  melt 
insensibly  into  one  another.  These  two  classes  may 
perhaps  equally  roughly  be  discriminated  as  simple  and 
descriptive  designations:  simple  designations,  that  is 
to  say,  names  merely  designating  our  Lord,  though,  of 
course,  no  one  of  these  names  merely  designates  our 
Lord,  but  all  have  more  or  less  of  a descriptive  ele- 
ment; and  descriptive  designations,  that  is  to  say,  des- 
ignations which  are  more  or  less  elaborate  descriptions 
of  His  nature  and  functions. 

The  simple  designations  are,  in  accordance  with  the 
general  character  of  the  book  as  a symbolical  Apoca- 
lypse, both  few  and  infrequently  em- 
Simple  ployed.^  In  the  formal  opening  of  the 
Designations  have — as  in  the  formal  open- 


where  in  the  N.  T.,  and  has  become  one  of  the  chief  occasions  for  the 
current  hypotheses  which  attack  the  unity  of  the  composition.”  He 
quotes  Bousset  as  speaking  of  the  christology  of  the  Apocalypse  as  a 
“confused  conglomeration  of  the  most  diverse  conceptions”  (Meyer’s 
Com.  on  Re^.,  161).  Cf.  R.  Palmer,  The  Dra?na  of  the  Apocalypse,  p. 
105,  who  complains  that  “ the  point  of  view  of  the  seer  is  continually 
changing,”  so  that  it  is  impossible  to  obtain  a unitary  doctrine  from 
him. 

2 Cf.  Holtzmann’s  enumeration,  Theologie  des  N.  T.,  i,  467,  and 
Gebhardt.  Doctrine  of  the  Apocalypse,  p.  77. 


288 


The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

ing  of  several  others  of  the  New  Testament  books 
(Mt  Mk  ih  Jno  Rom  ih  i Cor  ih  Gal 
I P 2 Pih  [Jno  2 Jno  3],  Jude  i) — the  full  cere- 
monious name,  ‘Jesus  Christ’  In  the  formal 

closing  verses  of  the  book  the  place  of  this  solemn  des- 
ignation is  taken  by  the  somewhat  more  descriptive 
designation  ‘the  Lord  Jesus’  (22“^’“h  cf.  however,  v. 
r.  ‘Jesus  Christ’  in  verse  21).  The  simple  ‘Jesus’ 
occurs  more  frequently  ( 12^^  14^“  17®  1^10,10  20^ 
22^^),  and,  if  we  may  be  allowed  the  expression,  ap- 
pears to  be  the  more  emotional,  as  distinguished  from 
the  more  formal,  simple  designation  of  our  Lord  in 
this  book.  The  simple  ‘ Christ  ’ occurs  only  twice 
(20^’^^),  although  in  what  we  may  call  its  more  descrip- 
tive form — that  is  in  its  appellative  use — ‘ the  Lord’s 
Christ  (Anointed),’  ‘God’s  Christ  (Anointed),’ — it 
/Occurs  twice  more  (at  12^^^).  The  term  ‘Lord’ 
seems  to  be  a designation  of  Christ  at  14^^:  and  His 
Lordship  is  of  course  copiously  recognized  elsewhere, 
not  merely  by  implication  as  in  the  designation  of  a 
day  as  “ the  Lord’s  day  ” ( i^^)  but  in  a series  of  elab- 
orately descriptive  designations  the  simplest  of  which 
is  perhaps  ‘ the  King  of  Kings  and  Lord  of  Lords  ’ 
(19^^),  varied  to  ‘the  Lord  of  Lords  and  King  of 
Kings  ’ (17^^,  cf.  2^’^^  3”^  5^).  Of  the  more  common 
Messianic  designations,  besides  the  fundamental  ‘ the 
Christ’  (ii^^  12^^^;  and  in  compounds  and 

‘ Christ  ’ ( 20^’^) , only  ‘ the  Son  of  God  ’ occurs,  and  that 
but  once  (2^^,  cf.  ‘ my  Father,’  2“^  3^’“L  ‘ His  God  and 
Father,’  ‘my  God,’  3“’^“),  and  accompanied  by 

3 Such  a phrase  as  ^ xoptaxij  ijfxipa  could  not  have  been  framed 
unless  Jesus  had  been  to  His  followers  ‘the  Lord’  by  way  of  eminence. 
Cf.  I Cor  ‘the  Lord’s  Supper.’ 


The  JFitness  of  the  Apocalypse  289 

descriptive  adjuncts  which  give  It  its  very  highest 
connotation.  Our  Lord’s  own  ‘ Son  of  Man,’  how- 
ever, has  Its  echo  In  the  description  of  Jesus  In  two 
visions  as  “ one  like  unto  a Son  of  Man  ” 14^^)  : 

and  by  the  preservation  In  this  designation  of  the  “ like 
unto  ” of  the  Danielle  vision  (7^^) — strengthened  from 
the  simple  (he  to  the  emphatic  ofiocov^ — the  seer  man- 
ages to  assert  with  great  strength  the  essential  deity  of 
our  Lord.  He  was  not  a son  of  man  but  only  “ like 
unto  a son  of  man.”^  He  even  enhances  this  Im- 
plication by  Interweaving  Into  the  description  traits 
drawn  not  only  from  Daniel’s  “ Son  of  Man,”  but  also 
from  his  “ Ancient  of  Days.”^  The  Johannine  desig- 
nation of  ‘ the  Word  of  God  ’ ( also  occurs  as  the 
name  of  the  conquering  Christ,  apparently  with  the 
Implication  that  In  Jesus  Is  manifested  the  definitive 
^revelation  of  God  In  which  He  addresses  Himself  to 
.man  with  Irresistible  power.®  Probably  the  “man 
child”  (or  “son”)  of  12^  (cf.  I2^^  “the  man”) 
tiltimately  refers  to  our  Lord:  and  If  so  It  also  Is 
doubtless  Messianic,  taking  hold  at  once  of  Is  66^  and 
Psalm  2^  possibly  even  of  Gen  4L  In  any  event  the 
allusion  is  to  the  conquest  of  evil  by  this  Son  of  the 
woman. 

4 Cf.  Gebhardt,  Doctrine  of  the  Apocalypse,  pp.  78-9:  “ De  Wette  and 
Hengstenberg  find  in  the  expression  the  superhuman  glory  of  Christ; 
for,  as  De  Wette  remarks,  to  affirm  of  a man  that  he  is  like  a man  is 
to  say  nothing;  or  as  Hengstenberg  expresses  it,  if  Christ  only  resem- 
bles a Son  of  Man,  there  must  be  another  side  of  His  nature  which 
surpasses  the  human.” 

5Cf.  Holtzmann,  op.  cit.,  pp.  467-8:  “The  Danielic  Son  of  Man, 
I?, 13  1^14^  and  even  the  Danielic  ‘ Ancient  of  Days,’  shine  through.” 

6 The  vision  is  the  vision  of  the  spiritual  conquest  of  the  world,  and 
in  such  a vision  the  designation  of  our  Lord  as  ‘the  Word  of  God’  is 
peculiarly  appropriate. 


290  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

The  more  elaborate  descriptive  titles  which  are  ap- 
plied to  our  Lord  embody  the  same  circle  of  ideas  as 
are  more  briefly  suggested  by  the  sim- 

Descnptive  designations;  and  only  more  viv- 

Designations  f „ , . , , 1 • 

idly  and  richly  express  their  contents. 

Some  of  these  have  for  their  burden  the  saving  activi- 
ties of  our  Lord  and  may  therefore  fitly  be  called 
soteriological.  A good  example  of  these  is  provided 
by  the  direct  description  of  Llim  as  “ Him  that  loved 
us  and  loosed  us  from  our  sins  by  His  blood”  (i^). 
But  the  most  striking  and  at  the  same  time  the  most 
frequently  employed  descriptive  designation  of  this 
class  is  that  which  calls  Him  “ the  Lamb  that  hath 
been  slain”  (5^-  I3^  cf.  7^^),  or  more  commonly 
simply  “ the  Lamb  ” without  express  but  always  with 
implied  reference  to  the  actual  sacrifice  6^’^® 

^9,10,14,17  j 2^^  j ^1,4,4,10  jyl4  j ^7,9  2 i9>l^>22,27  2 2^’^).’’^ 

Indeed,  we  understate  the  matter  when  we  say  this  is 
the  most  frequently  employed  descriptive  designation 
of  Christ  of  its  class.  It  is  in  fact  the  most  frequently 
employed  designation  of  Jesus  of  any 

‘The  Lamb*  kind,  and  must  be  looked  upon  as  em- 
bodying the  seer’s  favorite  mode  of 
conceiving  of  Jesus  and  His  work.  He  even  uses  it 
in  such  a manner  as  to  suggest  that  it  had  acquired  for 

The  word  is  which  is  used  26  times  of  Christ  in  Revela- 

tion (in  13I1  it  is  otherwise  used).  It  is  found  elsewhere  in  the  N.  T. 
only  at  Jno  21^®  (plural),  where  it  represents  Christ’s  followers. 
Jesus  is  called  ‘ Lamb  ’ in  Jno  i29,s6^  332^  j p 

nowhere  else  except  in  Rev.  (^apviovy  In  the  whole  N.  T.  ‘lamb  ’ 
(whether  dp.v6?  or  dpviov)  occurs  only  of  Christ  except  at  Jno  21 
^dpvia)  [cf.  Lk  lo®  (dp-^v)~\.  On  the  use  of  the  diminutive  dpviov 
of  Jesus  see  A.  B.  Grosart  in  the  Expos.  Times,  ii.  p.  57,  and  cf.  Geb- 
hardt,  p.  112;  Swete,  p.  77. 


The  Witness  of  the  Apocalypse  291 

him  much  the  status  of  a proper  name,  and  suggested 
Itself  as  a designation  of  Jesus  even  when  the  mind 
of  the  writer  was  dwelling  on  other  aspects  of  His 
work  than  that  most  closely  symbolized  by  this  title.® 
There  could  be  no  more  striking  Indication  of  the  high 
significance  the  writer  attached  to  the  sacrificial  death 
of  Christ,  and  to  the  dominance  of  the  fifty-third  chap- 
ter  of  Isaiah  In  the  framing  of  his  Messianic  concep- 
tions; matters  which  are  otherwise  copiously  Illustrated 
by  his  language.®  Other  prevailingly  soterlological  des- 
ignations advert  especially  to  our  Lord’s  resurrection, — 
such  as  that  by  which  He  Is  spoken  of  as  ‘ the  First- 
born of  the  Dead’  (i^)  ; and  others  still  to  His  trust- 
worthiness, such  as  when  He  Is  called  ‘ the  Faithful 
and  True’  (19^^,  or  ‘the  Faithful  Witness’  (i^), 
and  more  elaborately  ‘ the  Amen,  the  Faithful  and 
True  Witness,  the  beginning  of  the  creation  of  God  ’ 
(3^^)  ; or  again,  ‘ He  that  Is  holy.  He  that  Is  true, 

® So  Hoekstra,  De  Christologie  der  Apocalypse,  in  the  Theologisck 
Tijdschrift,  iii.,  1869,  p.  4;  and  even  Gebhardt,  Doctrine  of  the  Apoca- 
lypse, 1873,  pp.  113,  114:  “The  seer  in  the  course  of  his  representa- 
tion unquestionably  often  uses  the  expression  ‘ the  lamb  ’ without  any 
special  signification,  but  only  as  a standing  designation  of  Christ 
(cf.  171^).” 

9 Cf.  Holtzmann,  op.  cit.,  i.,  472:  “This  29-[27-]  times  occurring 
Lamb,  the  most  individual  christological  conception  of  the  author  (see 
Vol.  II.,  478)  refers  back  most  probably  to  Is  53'^.”  Perhaps  we  ought 
to  say  it  refers  back  proximately  to  Jno  i2»,  and  forms  one  of  those 
subtle  indications  that  this  book  is  the  composition  of  John — who  was 
one  of  the  two  disciples  (Jno  to  whom  the  Baptist  pointed  out 

Jesus  as  “the  Lamb  of  God  which  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world.” 
It  has  been  too  little  observed  to  what  an  extent  John  (both  in  Gospel 
and  Epistles  and  in  the  Apocalypse)  was  influenced  in  his  conceptions  by 
the  Baptist.  The  thesis  might  be  defended  that  the  Baptist  was  his  first 
and  most  impressive  teacher  in  theology.  In  any  event  it  is  important 
to  observe  such  hints  of  an  underlying  unity  between  Gospel  and 
Apocalypse. 


292  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

He  that  hath  the  keys  of  David,  He  that  openeth  and 
none  shall  shut  and  that  shutteth  and  none  shall  open  ’ 

(3^). 

The  transition  from  these  soterlological  designations 
to  those  which  are  more  purely  honorific,  or  perhaps 
we  might  better  say,  ontological.  Is  very 

Des“™nlfons  gradual,  or  indeed  insensible:  and 

nothing  Is  more  characteristic  of  the 
book  than  the  sharp  contrast  Into  which  designations 
of  the  two  classes  are  brought  by  their  Immediate  con- 
junction. Thus,  for  example,  we  read:  “And  I 
wept  much,  because  no  one  was  found  to  open  the 
book,  . . . and  one  of  the  elders  salth  unto  me, 
Weep  not,  behold  the  Lion  that  Is  of  the  tribe  of 
Judah  . . . hath  overcome  to  open  the  book.  . . . 
And  I saw  In  the  midst  of  the  throne,  and  of  the  four 
living  creatures,  and  In  the  midst  of  the  elders,  a Lamb 
standing  as  though  It  had  been  slain,  . . . and 

he  came  and  taketh  the  book  ...”  (5^®®'^  ). 
There  Is  no  question  of  mixed  metaphors  here:  there 
Is  only  question  of  bringing  together  In  Jesus  by  the 
most  varied  of  symbols  all  the  aspects  of  the  Mes- 
sianic prediction,  and  the  exhibition  of  these  all  as 
finding  their  fulfillment  In  Him.  All  these  designations 
are  distinctly  Messianic  In  their  ground  tone,  and  the 
Messianic  ground  tone  Is  taken  from  all  forms 
of  the  Messianic  expectation,  but  perhaps  prevail- 
ingly from  that  associated  In  the  Gospels  with  the 
title  of  ‘ Son  of  Man,’  to  which  there  Is  manifest 
allusion  even  In  passages  In  which  there  Is  not  only 
no  adduction  of  that  title,  but  no  direct  designa- 
tion of  our  Lord  from  that  point  of  view  (i^)-  The 
great  opening  description  of  our  Lord  as  ‘ Jesus 


The  Witness  of  the  Apocalypse  293 

Christ,  the  faithful  witness,  the  firstborn  of  the 
dead,  and  the  ruler  of  the  kings  of  the  earth’  (i^) 
unites  already  nearly  all  forms  of  designating  Him 
employed  In  the  book.  Here  Is  the  simple  name,  the 
recognition  of  His  dependableness,  and  the  ascription 
to  Him  of  the  Inauguration  of  life  and  of  universal 
sovereignty.  The  Messianic  ground  tone  is  especially 
prominent  In  such  designations  as  those  which  call 
Him  ‘ the  Lion  of  the  tribe  of  Judah,  the  Root  of 
David’  (5^),  or  ‘the  Root  and  the  Offspring  of 
E^avld,  the  bright,  the  morning  Star  ’ (22^®) , but  passes 
more  Into  the  background  In  such  as  those  which  speak 
of  Him  as  ‘ the  Son  of  God  who  hath  eyes  like  a flame 
of  fire  and  His  feet  are  like  unto  burnished  brass  ’ 
(2^®),  or  ‘He  that  holdeth  the  seven  stars  In  His 
right  hand.  He  that  walketh  In  the  midst  of  the  seven 
golden  candlesticks  ’ (2^),  or  ‘ He  that  hath  the  seven 
spirits  of  God  and  the  seven  stars’  (3^).  It  Is  His 
Messianic  function  of  judgment  which  Is  thrown  for- 
ward In  the  description  of  Him  as  ‘ He  that  hath  the 
sharp  two-edged  sword’  (2^^)  ; ‘He  that  Is  the  ruler 
of  the  kings  of  the  earth’  (i^),  ‘whose  eyes  are  like 
a flame  of  fire’  (2^®),  and  who,  since  His  dominion 
is  universal.  Is  ‘ the  Lord  of  Lords  and  King  of  Kings  ’ 
(17^^  19^®) — although  a greater  than  a Messiah  Is 
obviously  here.  The  climax  Is  attained  In  the  descrip- 
tion of  Him  as  ‘ the  First  and  the  Last,  which  was  dead 
and  lived  again  ’ (2^),  ‘ the  First  and  the  Last,  and  the 
Living  One’  (i^®),  ‘the  Alpha  and  Omega,  the  First 
and  the  Last,  the  Beginning  and  the  End’  (22^^),  in 
whose  hands  are  the  destinies  of  men 


Cf.  A.  B.  Davidson,  The  Theology  of  the  O,  T.,  p.  165,  on  the 
high  meaning  of  these  phrases  here  applied  to  Jesus:  “‘The  first  and 


294  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

It  seems  scarcely  necessary  to  draw  out  In  detail  the 
wealth  of  implication  of  deity  which  these  designations 
contain.  The  Apocalypse  does  not 
apply  to  our  Lord  directly  the  simple 
designation  Lod.  but  everything 
short  of  that  Is  done  to  emphasize  the  seer’s  estimate 
of  Him  as  a divine  Being  clothed  with  all  the  divine 
attributes. This  Is  generally  allowed;  and  those  who 
are  set  upon  having  the  Apocalypse  witness  to  a lower 
chrlstology  commonly  content  themselves  with  the  re- 
mark that  Its  language  must  not  be  taken  at  Its  face 
value.  Baur,  for  example,  contends  that  although  the 
highest  predicates  are  ascribed  to  Jesus,  they  are  “ only 
names  borne  outwardly  by  Him,  and  are  not  associated 
with  His  person  In  any  Inner  unity  of  nature”;  that 

last’  (Is  44®)  is  a surprising  generalization  for  a comparatively  early 
time.  It  is  not  a mere  statement  that  Jehovah  was  from  the  beginning 
and  will  be  at  the  end.  It  is  a name  indicating  His  relation  to  history 
and  the  life  of  men.  He  initiates  it,  and  He  winds  it  up.  And  He  is 
present  in  all  its  movements.  ‘Since  it  was,  there  am  I’  (48I®).  Even 
the  last  book  in  the  N.  T.  has  nothing  loftier  to  say  of  Jehovah  than 
that  He  is  ‘ the  first  and  the  last  ’ : ‘ I am  the  Alpha  and  the  Omega,  the 
first  and  the  last,  saith  the  Lord,  the  Almighty’  (Rev  i®).”  It  is  by 
these  lofty  designations  that  Jesus  is  spoken  of  in  the  Apocalypse.  Cf. 
Swete  on  the  passage. 

Cf.  the  brief  but  instructive  sketch  of  the  christology  of  the  Apoca- 
lypse in  Swete,  pp.  civ.  seq.,  especially  the  summary  of  the  relations  of 
Christ  to  God  on  p.  clvii.:  “ (i)  He  has  the  prerogatives  of  God.  He 
searches  men’s  hearts  (2^3)  ; He  can  kill  or  restore  life  (i^®  2^3)  ; He 
receives  a worship  which  is  rendered  without  distinction  to  God  (5^®)  ; 
His  priests  are  also  priests  of  God  (20®)  ; He  occupies  one  throne  with 
God  (22^’®),  and  shares  one  sovereignty  (ii^®).  (2)  Christ  receives 

the  titles  of  God.  He  is  the  Living  One  (i^^),  the  Holy  and  True 
(3"^),  the  Alpha  and  Omega,  the  First  and  the  Last,  the  Beginning  and 
the  End  (22^®).  Passages  which  in  the  O.  T.  relate  to  God  are 

without  hesitation  applied  to  Christ,  e.g.  Deut  (i7^^)>  Prov  3'® 


The  Witness  of  the  Apocalypse  295 

“ inner  connection  between  the  divine  predicates  and 
the  historical  individual  who  bears  them  ” is  lackingd^ 
In  point  of  fact  these  divine  predicates  are  there;  and 
whether  the  seer  means  anything  by  them  may  be  safely 
left  to  the  reader  to  decide.  Jesus  is  represented  as 
emphatically  as  God  Himself,  as  the  living  one 
eternal  omniscient  2^®  19^^) » the  searcher 

of  the  reins  and  hearts  (2^^),  in  whose  hands 
are  the  keys  of  death  and  hell  If  in 

reminiscence  of  Is  44^  where  the  Lord,  the  King 
of  Israel,  and  his  Redeemer,  the  Lord  of  hosts,  de- 
clares of  Himself:  “ I am  the  first  and  the  last:  and 
beside  me  there  is  no  God,” — God  is  represented  as 
announcing:  “I  am  the  Alpha  and  the  Omega,  the 
beginning  and  the  end”  (21^  cf.  i®),  Jesus  equally 
(despite  the  strong  monotheistic  assertion  of  the  orig- 
inal passage)  is  represented  as  announcing:  “ I am  the 
first  and  the  last,  and  the  living  one”  cf.  2®), 

“ I am  the  Alpha  and  the  Omega,  the  first  and  the 

(319),  Dan  7^  Zech  4^0  (s®)-  Thus  the  writer  seems  either  to 

coordinate  or  to  identify  Christ  with  God.  Yet  he  is  certainly  not 
conscious  of  any  tendency  to  ditheism,  for  his  book  is  rigidly  mono- 
theistic; nor,  on  the  other  hand,  is  he  guilty  of  confusing  the  two 
Persons.” 

^2  So  also  substantially  Kostlin  and  Hoekstra.  See  the  refutation  in 
Gebhardt,  pp.  86  seq.  Bousset  (Meyer’s  Com.  on  Apoc.),  while  repre- 
senting the  christology  of  the  book  as  “ a confused  conglomeration  of 
the  most  diverse  conceptions”  (280),  has  yet  to  recognize  that  it  is  (in 
some  of  its  elements  at  least)  “ apparently  the  most  advanced  in  the 
whole  N.  T.”  (280).  He  says:  “We  have  in  it  the  faith  of  a layman 
unaffected  by  any  theological  reflection,  which  with  heedless  naivete 
simply  identifies  Christ  in  His  predicates  and  attributes  with  God, 
while  on  the  other  side  it  calmly  incorporates  also  wholly  archaic 
elements.” 


296  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

last,  the  beginning  and  the  end”  (22^^)  d®  Indeed,  in 
the  opening  address  we  have  one  of 

Background  those  Trinitarian  arrangements  which 
betray  the  real  underlying  conception 
of  deity  in  others,  too,  of  the  New  Testament  writers: 
“ Grace  to  you  and  peace  from  Him  which  is  and  which 
w^as  and  which  is  to  come  ” — that  is  Jehovah,  of  which 
this  is  an  analysis, — “ and  from  the  seven  Spirits  ” — 
that  is  the  Holy  Spirit  set  forth  in  His  divine  com- 
pleteness,— “ and  from  Jesus  Christ  who  is  the  faith- 
ful witness,  the  firstborn  from  the  dead  and  the  ruler 
of  the  kings  of  the  earth”  In  the  presence 

of  such  pervasive  and  universally  recognized  ascrip- 
tions of  deity  to  our  Lord  we  need  not  stop  to  ex- 
pound the  significance  of  such  designations  as  that 
by  which  He  is  called  not  merely  the  ‘ Amen^^  and  the 
faithful  and  true  witness,’  but  ‘ the  principle  of  the 

13  Dr.  B.  W.  Bacon,  Hastings’  D.  C.  G.,  L,  43  endeavors  to  ex- 
pound the  application  of  these  phrases  to  Christ  as  an  eschatologico- 
soteriological  adaptation,  in  which  the  metaphysical  implication  is  lost: 
in  them  Christ  would  say  “I  am  the  primary  object  and  ultimate  ful- 
fillment of  God’s  promise”  (43).  What  is  in  its  application  to  God, 
therefore,  “ a solemn  designation  of  Divinity  ” becomes  when  trans- 
ferred to  Christ  only  an  assertion  that  in  Him  the  promised  redemption 
is  accomplished:  “It  is  only  in  the  eschatological  sense  that  Christ  be- 
comes the  original  object  and  ultimate  fulfillment  of  the  Divine  pur- 
poses and  promises,  ‘the  Yea  and  Amen,’  ‘the  Alpha  and  the  Omega, 
the  first  and  the  last,  the  beginning  and  the  end’”  (p.  45).  The  arti- 
ficiality and  inadequacy  of  this  construction  is  manifest.  Cf.  on  the 
other  hand  A.  E.  Ross,  art.  First  and  Last,’’  Hastings’  D.  C.  G.,  i., 
595  who  frankly  allows  “that  the  title  ‘the  First  and  the  Last’  as 
applied  to  Christ  in  Rev.  recalls  and  attributes  to  Him  all  that  the  O.  T. 
writers  had  realized  of  the  nature  of  God”  (596  a).  Cf.  Dr.  David- 
son, as  above,  p.  318,  note,  on  the  essential  significance  of  the  phrases. 

On  the  ‘ Amen  ’ as  a designation  of  our  Lord,  cf.  J.  S.  Clemens, 
Hastings’  D.  C.  G.,  I.,  51  a.,  and  J.  Massie,  Hastings’  D.  B.,  i.,  81  a. 


The  JF  it  ness  of  the  Apocalypse  297 

creation  of  God’  — that  is  to  say,  the  active 

agent  in  creating  all  that  God  creates.  It  Is  abundantly 
clear  that  the  Christ  of  the  Apocalypse  Is  a divine 
person. 

Cf.  Gebhardt,  p.  93,  and  Dusterdieck,  in  loc. 

1®  Cf.  T.  C.  Porter  in  Hastings’  B.  D.,  iv.,  263  a:  “While  angels 
are  classed  with  men,  Christ  is  classed  with  God ; and  various  titles 
and  expressions  carry  us  beyond  not  only  the  Messianic  but  also  the 
angelogical  speculations  of  Judaism.  He  is  once  called  ‘the  Son  of 
God’  (2I®,  but  see  also  2-1  3®»“i,  cf.  1®  14!)  ; once  ‘the  beginning  of 
the  creation  of  God’  (31^),  as  only  the  Divine  Wisdom  is  called  in 
O.  T.  (Prov  8-2),  and  as  Christ  is  called  only  by  St.  Paul  in  the  N.  T. 
(Col  ii5).  He  is  called  once  also  the  ‘Word  of  God’  (19I®),  and 
even  this  Johannine  (Hellenistic)  title  is  surpassed  by  the  title  of  eter- 
nity, ‘the  First  and  the  Last’  (iii  2®  22I®).”  Cf.  Stanton,  The  Jenvish 
and  Christian  Messiah,  p.  163. 


THE  ISSUE  OF  THE  INVESTIGATION 


We  have  now  passed  in  review  the  whole  body  of 
designations  which  are  applied  to  our  Lord  in  the 
Fundamental  pages  of  the  New  Testament.  We 
^he'chrS^  cannot  fail  to  be  impressed  with  the 
Community  variety  of  these  designations  and  the 
richness  of  their  suggestion.  It  would  be  a pleasant 
task  to  develop  all  their  implications.  This  would, 
however,  take  us  too  far  afield  for  our  present  pur- 
pose. Let  it  suffice  to  observe  that  at  bottom  they 
seem  to  be  charged  with  three  specific  convictions  on 
the  part  of  the  Christian  community,  to  which  they 
give  endlessly  repeated  and  endlessly  varied  expres- 
sion. Christ  is  the  Messiah;  Christ  is  our  Redeemer; 
Christ  is  God:  these  are  the  great  asseverations  which 
are  especially  embodied  in  them.  All  three  are  already 
summed  up  in  the  angelic  announcement  which  was 
made  to  the  shepherds  at  His  birth : “ I bring  you 
good  tidings  of  great  joy  which  shall  be  to  all  the 
people:  for  there  is  born  to  you  this  day  in  the  city 
of  David  the  Saviour,  who  is  Christ  the  Lord”  (Lk 
2^^).  The  whole  New  Testament  may  be  said  to  be 
an  exposition  and  enforcement  of  that  announcement: 
and  in  the  course  of  this  exposition  and  enforcement  it 
teaches  us  many  things.  Above  all,  it  places  beyond 
dispute  the  main  fact  with  which  we  have  now  to  deal, 
this  fact,  to  wit,  that  the  whole  Christian  community. 


The  Issue  of  the  Investigation  299 

and  that  from  the  very  beginning,  was  firmly  convinced 
that  Jesus  Christ  was  God  manifest  in  the  flesh. 

There  really  can  be  found  no  place  for  doubt  of  this 
fact.  But  upon  its  emergence  as  an  indubitable  fact 
This  Conviction  it  becomes  plain  that  it  is  freighted  with 
OuTLord’?  significance.  The  fact  that  the 

Teaching  whole  Christian  community  from  the 
very  beginning  held,  as  to  its  fundamental  principle, 
to  the  deity  of  its  founder,  is  a very  remarkable  fact, 
and  surely  needs  accounting  for.  'And  it  will  be  found 
difficult  to  impossibility  adequately  to  account  for  it 
except  upon  the  assumption  that  the  founder  of  Chris- 
tianity really  was  a divine  person.  This  universal 
and  uniform  conviction  of  the  deity  of  Christ  in  the 
primitive  Christian  body  in  a word  implies  the  actual 
Qdeity  of  Christ,  as  its  presupposition.  It  cannot  be 
supposed  that  the  whole  body  of  the  first  Christians 
firmly  believed  in  the  deity  of  their  Master  without 
evidence — ^without  much  evidence — without  convincing 
evidence.  The  primary  item  of  this  evidence  was  no 
(^doubt  our  Lord’s  own  self-assertion:  and  this  is  a 
fact  of  the  first  importance  which  is  immediately  given 
in  the  fact  of  the  universal  and  uniform  belief  in  our 
'jtLord’s  deity  which  characterized  the  first  age  of  the 
Church.  That  belief  cannot  possibly  be  accounted  for 
except  on  the  supposition  that  it  was  founded  in  our 
Lord’s  teaching.  As  certain  as  it  is  then  that  the  primi- 
tive Christians  were  firmly  and  without  exception  con- 
vinced of  our  Lord’s  deity,  so  certain  is  it  that  our 
Lord — as  indeed  He  is  represented  to  have  done  in  the 
uniform  tradition — asserted  Himself  to  be  a divine 
person.  And  now  we  must  go  further.  As  certain- 
as  it  is  that  these  two  things  are  true,  that  the  whole 


300  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

Christian  community  believed  their  Lord  to  be  divine 
and  that  Jesus  taught  that  He  was  divine,  so  certain 
it  is  that  neither  of  them  could  be  true  if  it  were  not 
true  that  our  Lord  was  divine. 

We  have  already  remarked  that  the  Christian  com- 
munity cannot  be  supposed  to  have  formed  and  im- 
And  Something  iT^O'^^bly  fixed  in  their  hearts  the  con- 
More  than  His  viction  that  their  Lord  was  divine 
Teaching  without  evidence — much  evidence — 
convincing  evidence.  We  have  also  pointed  out  that 
the  primary  item  of  this  evidence  was  our  Lord’s  own 
assertion.  But  there  certainly  must  have  been  more 
evidence  than  our  Lord’s  bare  assertion.  Men  do  not 
without  ado  believe  everyone  who  announces  himself 
to  be  God,  upon  the  bald  announcement  alone.  There 
mlist  have  been  attendant  circumstances  which  sup- 
ported the  announcement  and  gave  it  verisimilitude, — ■ 
nay,  cogency — or  it  would  not  have  had  such  power 
over  men.  Our  Lord’s  life,  His  teachings.  His  char- 
acter, must  have  been  consonant  with  it.  His  deeds 
as  well  as  His  words  must  have  borne  Him  witness. 
The  credit  accorded  to  His  assertion  is  the  best  possible 
evidence  that  such  was  the  case.  We  can  understand 
how  His  followers  could  believe  Him  divine,  if  in 
point  of  fact  He  not  only  asserted  Himself  to  be 
divine  but  lived  as  became  a God,  taught  as  befitted  a 
divine  Instructor,  in  all  His  conversation  in  the  world 
manifested  a perfection  such  as  obviously  was  not 
human:  and  if  dying.  He  rose  again  from  the  dead. 
If  He  did  none  of  these  things  can  their  firm  and  pas- 
sionate faith  in  His  deity  be  explained? 

Possibly  we  do  not  always  fully  realize  the  nature 
of  the  issue  here  brought  before  us.  Here  is  a young 


The  Issue  of  the  Investigation  301 

man  scarcely  thirty-three  years  of  age,  emerged  from 
obscurity  only  for  the  brief  space  of  three  years,  living 

Including  during  those  years  under  the  scorn  of  the 

Something  world,  which  grew  steadily  in  intensity 
Very  Conclusive  ^nd  finally  passed  into  hatred,  and  dying 
at  the  end  the  death  of  a malefactor : but  leaving  behind 
Him  the  germs  of  a world-wide  community,  the  spring 
of  whose  vitality  is  the  firm  conviction  that  He  was 
God  manifest  in  the  flesh.  If  anything  human  is  ob- 
vious it  is  obvious  that  this  conviction  was  not  formed 
and  fixed  without  evidence  for  it  of  the  most  convinc- 
ing kind.  The  account  His  followers  themselves  gave 
of  the  matter  is  that  their  faith  was  grounded  not 
merely  in  His  assertions,  nor  merely  in  the  impression 
His  personality  made  upon  them  in  conjunction  with 
His  claims, — but  specifically  in  a series  of  divine  deeds, 
cujpiinating  in  His  ri^ng  from  the  dead,  setting  its 
seal  upon  His  claims  and  the  impression  made  by  His 
personality.  This  is  the  account  of  the  great  place  the 
Resurrection  of  Christ  takes  in  the  Apostolic  propa- 
ganda. It  is  the  seal  set  by  heaven  upon  the  truth  of 
His  deity  as  proclaimed  in  His  teaching.  It  is  safe 
to  say  that  apart  from  evidence  so  convincing  the  high 
claims  of  Jesus  could  not  have  been  met  with  such  firm 
and  unquestioning  faith  by  His  followers.  This  very 
faith  becomes  thus  a proof  of  the  truth  of  His  claims.^ 

1 Cf.  Stanton,  The  Je^vish  and  the  Christian  Messiah,  pp.  253,  253: 
“ It  appears  to  me  that  without  the  cooperation  of  the  two  main  causes 
here  indicated,  first  the  impression  made  by  the  personality  of  Jesus, 
His  works  and  His  claims  for  Himself,  before  His  crucifixion,  and 
then  the  evidence  which  convinced  His  disciples  of  His  resurrection, 
faith  in  Him  as  a supernatural  Christ  could  not  have  been  established 
so  universally  from  the  first.” 


302  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

And  so,  in  fact,  is  the  mere  fact  that  He  made  these 
claims.  We  have  seen  that  the  fact  that  He  made 
Not  Supposable  these  claims  is  not  only  asserted  by  all 
that  Jesus  made  His  followers,  but  is  safeguarded  by 
False  Claims  their  faith  in  His  deity,  which  were  in- 
explicable without  it.  But  it  is  evident  that  He  could 
not  have  made  such  a claim  unless  what  He  claimed 
was  true.  We  are  not  absurdly  arguing  that  the  claim 
to  be  God  is  one  which  cannot  be  made  by  a human 
being  untruly.  What  is  it  that  the  folly  or  wickedness 
of  men  will  not  compass?  But  why  should  we  absurdly 
argue  that  Jesus  may  be  supposed  to  have  done  what- 
ever we  think  within  the  compass  of  human__folly  or 
human  wickedness?  Was  Jesus  the  silliest  of  men; 
or  the  most  wicked?  The  point  is  not  that  no  man 
could  make  such  a claim  untruly,  but  that  Jesus  could 
not  make  it  untruly!  Many  men  there  have  been, 
and  are,  who  might  do  so;  some  have  done  so — 
men  who  were  vilely  impostors  or  wildly  in^ne.  Is 
Jesus  to  be  classed  with  these  men?  Are  we  to  ask 
with  Renan  how  far  Jesus  may  be  supposed  to  have 
gone  in  assuming  a role  He  knew  He  had  no  claim 
upon?  Are  we  to  ask,  with  Oscar  Holtzmann,  was 
Jesus  a fanatic?  These  are  the  alternatives:  grossly 
deceiving;  grossly  deceived;  or  else  neither  deceiving 
nor  deceived,  but  speaking  the  words  of  soberness  and 
truth.  He,  the  flower  of  human  sanity;  He,  the  ripe 
fruit  of  human  perfection;  can  He  be  supposed  to 
have  announced  to  His  followers  that  He  was  above  all 
angels,  abode  continually  in  equal  intercourse  with  the 
Father,  shared  with  Him  in  the  ineffable  Name — and 
it  not  be  true?  As  Dr.  Gwatkin*  crisply  puts  it, 

^The  Kno<v:ledge  of  God,  i.,  120. 


The  Issue  of  the  Investigation  303 

“ There  is  a tremendous  dilemma  here  which  must  be 
faced:  assuming  that  the  tremendous  claim  ascribed 
to  Him  is  false,  one  would  think  it  must  have  disor- 
dered His  life  with  insanity  if  He  made  it  Himself, 
and  the  accounts  of  His  life  if  others  invented  it.” 
This  witness  is  true.  Neither  Jesus  nor  His  follow- 
ers could  have  invented  the  claims  to  deity  which  Jesus 
is  reported  to  have  made  for  Himself:  for  the  truth 
of  these  claims  is  needed  to  account  both  for  Jesus  and 
for  His  followers. 

We  have  no  intention  of  stopping  here  to  argue  these 
points;  if  indeed  to  establish  them  they  need  more 
The  Issue  the  argument  than  their  mere  statement.  It 

Evid*nce"o£  necessary,  however,  to  suggest 

the  Source  them  in  order  to  indicate  the  gain  we 
register  upon  ascertaining,  as  we  have  ascertained,  that 
the  entire  Christian  community  from  the  very  first  was 
firmly  convinced  of  the  deity  of  its  Lord.  That  fact 
established,  it  carries  with  it  the  truth  of  the  convic- 
tion. For  the  conviction,  in  the  circumstances  in  which 
it  was  formed  and  held,  cannot  be  accounted  for  save 
on  the  assumption  of  the  existence  of  compelling  evi- 
dence for  it,  and  this  compelling  evidence  must  include 
in  it  the  claims  of  Jesus,  which  in  turn  cannot  be 
accounted  for  save  on  the  assumption  of  their  truth. 
Grant  that  Jesus  was  really  God,  in  a word,  and  every- 
thing falls  orderly  into  its  place.  Deny  it,  and  you 
have  a Jesus  and  a Christianity  on  your  hands  both 
equally  unaccountable.  And  that  is  as  much  as  to  say 
that  the  ultimate  proof  of  the  deity  of  Christ  is  just 
— Jesus  and  Christianity.  If  Christ  were  not  God, 
we  should  have  a very  different  Jesus  and  a very  dif- 
ferent Christianity.  And  that  is  the  reason  that  mod- 


304  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

ern  unbelief  bends  all  its  energies  in  a vain  effort  to 
abolish  the  historical  Jesus  and  to  destroy  historical 
Christianity.  Its  instinct  is  right : but  its  task  is  hope- 
less. We  need  the  Jesus  of  history  to  account  for  the 
Christianity  of  history.  And  we  need  both  the  Jesus  of 
history  and  the  Christianity  of  history  to  account  for  the 
history  of  the  world.  The  history  of  the  world  is  the 
^ product  of  the  precise  Christianity  which  has  actually 
existed,  and  this  Christianity  is  the  product  of  the  pre- 
cise Jesus  which  actually  was.  To  be  rid  of  this  Jesus 
we  must  be  rid  of  this  Christianity,  and  to  be  rid  of 
this  Christianity  we  must  be  rid  of  the  world-history 
which  has  grown  out  of  it.  We  must  have  the  Chris- 
tianity of  history  and  the  Jesus  of  history,  or  we  leave 
the  world  that  exists,  and  as  it  exists,  unaccounted  for. 
But  so  long  as  we  have  either  the  Jesus  of  history  or  the 
Christianity  of  history  we  shall  have  a divine  Jesus. 


INDEXES 


i 


These  Indexes  have  been,  with  great  kindness,  prepared  by 
the  Rev.  Dr.  John  H.  Kerr,  Secretary  of  the  American  Tract  ) 
Society.  Thanks  are  due  to  Dr.  Kerr  also  for  whatever  ac-  | 
curacy  has  been  attained  in  printing  the  text  of  the  book.  | 

! 

ij 


INDEXES 


I.  Index  of  the  Designations  of  our  Lord. 

Advocate  (the),  193;  See  Paraclete. 

Advocate  with  the  Father,  220. 

Alpha  and  Omega  (the),  292,  295. 

Amen  (the),  the  Faithful  and  True  Witness,  290,  295. 

Apostle  (the)  and  High  Priest  of  our  Confession,  281. 

Author  ( apyriy6<i  ) of  Life  (the),  217;  — of  Salvation,  281; — • 
and  Perfecter  of  our  Faith,  281;  — and  Saviour,  217. 
See  Captain,  Prince. 

Beginning  (the)  and  the  End,  292,  295. 

Beginning  (the)  of  the  Creation  of  God,  290. 

Beloved  (the),  13,  22,  83,  117,  126,  128,  150,  245,  269. 

Bishop  (the)  of  our  Souls,  267. 

Bread  (the)  of  God,  193. 

Bridegroom  (the),  12,  13,  45,  50,  84,  9L  123,  126,  150,  194. 
Captain  of  Salvation  (the)  281.  See  Author,  Prince. 

Chosen  One  (the)  of  God,  113,  117,  126  [192].  See  Elect 
(the)  of  God. 

Christ,  4,  13,  15,  16,  23,  57,  58,  59,  60,  62,  65,  75  sq.,  91,  108, 
III,  125,  126,  150,  152,  176,  179,  182,  190,  214,  217, 
222,  239,  250,  259,  265,  270,  275,  287. 

The  Christ  of  God,  15,  iii,  [287]. 

Christ  the  Lord,  107,  126,  131,  145,  297. 

Christ  a King,  65,  ill,  112. 

The  Christ  the  King  of  Israel,  16. 

The  Christ  the  Son  of  the  Living  God,  15,  129. 

Christ  Jesus,  15,  205  sq.,  214,  239,  241,  259. 

Christ  Jesus  our  Saviour,  243. 

Christ  Jesus  the  (or  our)  Lord,  238,  239,  242. 

Coming  One  (the),  59,  76,  125,  129,  154,  178,  183,  190  sq. 
Comforter  (the).  See  Advocate,  Paraclete. 

David,  He  that  hath  the  Keys  of,  290. 

David,  the  Root  and  Offspring  of,  292. 

David,  the  Son  of.  See  Son  of  David. 

Despot  (5£<r7TOT7;?),  265,  269.  See  Master. 

Door  (the),  193. 

307 


3o8  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

Elect  (the)  of  God,  113,  117,  [126].  See  Chosen  One. 
Eternal  Life,  271  sq.  See  Life. 

Faithful  (the)  and  True,  290. 

Faithful  (the)  and  True  Witness,  290. 

Faithful  Witness  (the),  290,  295. 

First  (the)  and  the  Last  and  the  Living  One,  292,  294. 
Firstborn  (the),  280. 

Firstborn  (the)  of  the  Dead,  290,  295. 

Glory  (the),  263.  Cf,  Lord  of  Glory. 

Glory,  the  Effulgence  of  God’s,  278. 

God,  177,  181,  187,  199  sq.,  218,  238,  244,  250,  254,  268,  271 
sq.,  273,  277,  279,  297. 

God  only-begotten,  178,  195,  199. 

Our  God  and  Saviour,  Jesus  Christ,  268,  269. 

Our  Great  God  and  Saviour,  244,  254,  260. 

The  true  God  and  Eternal  Life,  271  sq. 

God  over  all,  238,  250,  254,  258,  260. 

God’s  Christ,  257.  See  The  Christ  of  God. 

God’s  Own  Son,  218. 

God’s  Son  Jesus,  270;  — Jesus  Christ,  270. 

Good  Shepherd  (the),  193. 

Good  Teacher,  8. 

Guide  {xaerjyrjTTjD , 67,  1 25.  See  Master. 

Heir  (the)  of  all  things,  280. 

High  Priest,  276,  281,  282  sq.  See  Priest. 

Holy  One  (the)  of  God,  14,  20,  113,  126,  158,  191. 

Holy  One  (the),  217. 

Holy  Thing  (that),  iio. 

- Holy  and  Righteous  One  (the),  216. 

Holy  and  True  (He  that  is),  290. 

House-Master  ( ) , 67,  68,  91,  100,  125.  See 

Master  of  the  House,  Master. 

Image  of  God  (the),  253;  — Image  (the)  of  God’s  Sub- 
stance, 278. 

Immanuel,  88,  126. 

Jesus,  3,  5,  6,  35,  57,  58,  59,  63,  91,  97,  98,  125,  179,  180, 
203,  222,  239,  270,  275,  287. 

Jesus  the  Son  of  Joseph,  i8o. 

Jesus  of  Nazareth,  6,  35,  97,  125,  153,  180,  204. 

Jesus  the  Nazarene,  5,  58,  63,  125,  204. 

Jesus  the  Galilean,  58,  64,  125. 

Jesus  the  Prophet  from  Nazareth  of  Galilee,  64,  125 


309 


Index  of  Designations 

Jesus  Master,  g8,  125. 

Jesus  our  Lord,  238,  268,  289. 

Jesus  the  Son  of  David,  5,  6,  98,  125. 

Jesus  the  King  of  the  Jews,  58,  64,  125. 

Jesus,  the  Son  of  God,  98,  270,  276. 

Jesus,  the  Son  of  the  Most  High  God,  5,  6,  125. 

Jesus,  surnamed  Christ,  58,  61,  64,  125. 

Jesus  Christ,  5,  14,  15,  57,  58,  59,  63,  74,  125,  177,  178,  183, 
184  sq.,  205,  212,  239,  240,  242,  263,  265,  266,  267, 
270,  276,  287. 

Jesus  Christ  the  Nazarene,  204,  205. 

Jesus  Christ,  the  (or  our)  Lord,  239,  242,  265. 

Jesus  Christ  our  Saviour,  243. 

Jesus  Christ  the  Righteous,  270. 

Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  Father,  270. 

King  (the),  77,  91,  112,  125,  131,  215. 

King  of  the  Jews  (the),  13,  17,  77,  112,  125,  189. 

King  of  Israel  (the),  13,  16,  18,  77,  125,  132,  189,  190. 
King  of  Kings  and  Lord  of  Lords,  287,  292. 

Lamb  (the)  289,  [291]. 

Lamb  of  God  (the),  192. 

Lamb  (the)  that  hath  been  slain,  289,  291. 

Life  (the),  271. 

Life,  Eternal,  272  sq. 

Light,  178. 

Light  of  Man,  193. 

Light  of  the  World,  193. 

Lion  (the)  that  is  of  the  Tribe  of  Judah,  291,  292. 

Living  One  (the),  294. 

Lord  ( xopio^s  ),  3,  5,  7,  9,  10,  35,  36,  46,  47,  66,  69  sq.,  91, 
97,  99,  loi  sq.,  108,  125,  131,  133,  140  sq.,  150,  152, 
154,  156,  179,  180,  181  sq.,  203,  207  sq.,  209  sq.,  222 
sq.,  230  sq.,  236  sq.,  24O,  259,  263,  265,  266,  267,  276, 

277,  287. 

Lord  Jesus,  5,  206,  207,  217,  238,  259,  276,  287. 

Lord  Christ,  238,  239. 

The  Lord’s  Christ,  97,  104,  144,  287. 

The  (or  our)  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  205,  207,  209,  214,  238, 
241,  259,  262,  263,  265,  267,  268. 

Lord  and  Christ,  212. 

The  Lord  and  Saviour,  268,  269. 

Our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  268,  269. 


310 


The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

Lord  of  Lords  and  King  of  Kings,  287>  292. 

Lord  and  God,  181,  187,  200. 

Lord  of  Glory  (the),  223,  264. 

Lord  (the)  of  the  House  (o  xupto<s  oura?),  ii,  cf.  Master 
of  the  House,  House-Master. 

Loved  us  (He  that)  and  loosed  us  from  our  sins,  289. 

Man,  180,  218,  246  [288].  — Man  Child,  288. 

Master  ( i7rc<rrariy9  ) , 3,  99,  100,  125*  See  Guide  ( xad7jY7jTrj<s  ), 
Teacher  ( 3iddffxaXo<s) , Despot  {S£(ttt6t7]?)  , Master  of 
the  House  or  House-Master  {ohodsaTtdrrj^i). 

Master  of  the  House  (oixodeffTTorr)^) . See  House-Master. 
Master  { 8e<T7:6Tr]<s)  and  Lord  Jesus  Christ  (our),  265* 
Mediator  of  the  New  Covenant,  281,  cf.  246. 

Messiah,  183,  192,  cf.  Christ. 

Nazarene  (the),  63,  125. 

Only-hegotten,  178,  195. 

Only-begotten  Son,  i79j  188,  I95»  iqS. 

Only-begotten  from  the  Father,  178,  I99* 

Only-begotten  Son  of  God,  270. 

Only-begotten  God,  178,  195* 

Paraclete,  193.  See  Advocate. 

Priest,  276,  282  sq.  See  High  Priest. 

Prince  ( ),  217*  See  Author,  Captain. 

Prince  of  Life,  217. 

Prince  and  Saviour,  217. 

Principle  of  the  Creation  of  God,  296. 

Prophet,  12,  58,  64,  73,  106,  125,  190,  215,  216. 

Rabbi,  3,  6,  7,  35,  66,  125,  180. 

Rabboni,  7,  125,  180. 

Resurrection  (the)  and  the  Life,  193. 

Righteous  One  (the),  216,  217,  270. 

Root  (the)  and  Offspring  of  David,  292. 

Ruler  (the)  of  the  Kings  of  the  Earth,  291,  292,  295. 

Saviour,  107  sq.,  126,  131,  I44,  217,  243,  245,  268. 

Jesus  Christ  our  Saviour,  243,  297. 

Christ  Jesus  our  Saviour,  243. 

Our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  268,  269. 

Our  God  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  244,  254,  260,  268, 
269. 

The  Saviour  of  the  World,  270. 

Servant  (traT^)  of  God  (the),  84,  126,  215,  216. 

Sent  of  (^d  (the),  186. 


Index  of  Designations  3^^ 

Shepherd,  12,  84,  126,  193,  267,  281. 

The  Shepherd  and  Bishop  of  our  Souls,  267. 

The  Great  Shepherd  of  the  Sheep,  281. 

Son  of  Abraham,  58,  126. 

Son  of  David,  5,  10,  13,  I5»  l6,  l8,  23,  58,  112,  125,  126,  131, 
132,  150,  248. 

Son  of  Joseph,  180. 

Son  (of  God),  21,  23,  37,  sq.,  91  sq.,  I17,  126,  128,  130, 

134,  139  sq.,  150,  152,  153,  170,  172,  183  sq.,  195,  196 
sq.,  206,  251  sq.,  269,  270,  276,  277  sq. 

Son  of  God,  14,  19,  21,  42,  78,  91,  no,  in,  116,  128,  133, 

134,  137  sq.,  150,  154,  164,  168,  176,  179,  183,  188, 

190,  195,  212  sq.,  215,  218,  246,  248,  250,  258,  260, 

269,  270,  271,  276  sq.,  287. 

Son  of  the  Blessed,  14,  16,  19,  126. 

Son  of  the  Living  God,  15,  79,  126. 

Son  of  the  Most  High,  116,  126. 

Son  of  the  Most  High  God,  5,  14,  19,  43,  no,  116,  126, 

139,  153. 

Son  of  Man,  4,  14,  15,  16,  24  sq.,  38  sq.,  51,  54,  84  sq.,  91, 
119  sq.,  126,  133,  135  sq.,  150,  152,  153,  154,  156,  166, 
167,  169,  172,  194,  212,  [288]. 

Star,  the  Bright  and  Morning,  292. 

Stars,  He  that  hath  the  Seven  Spirits  of  God  and  the  Seven, 
292 ; — He  that  Holdeth  the  Seven,  292. 

Sword,  He  that  hath  the  sharp,  two-edged,  292. 

Teacher  {8iddffxaXo<s)^  3,  7,  8,  35,  36,  66,  99,  125,  180,  181. 
See  Master. 

True  God  and  Eternal  Life  (the),  271  sq. 

Word  (the),  177,  178. 

The  Word  of  Life,  270. 

The  Word  of  God,  288. 


II.  Index  of  Passages  of  Scripture 
{The  superior  figures  in  this  Index  indicate  the  number  of  times  a pas~ 


sage  is  cited  on  a given  page). 


GENESIS 

PAGE 

3:1 

78 

4:1 

289 

5:1 

EXODUS 

15 

20:5 

45 

33:11 

LEVITICUS 

217 

4:  5 

285 

16 

285 

6;  22 

285 

24:11 

219 

16 

NUMBERS 

219 

12: 6-8 

DEUTERONOMY 

217 

6:4 

187 

10:  17 

294 

18:  15 

215 

32:  18 

78 

33:2 

JUDGES 

48 

3:9 

269 

3:15 

269 

6:36 

I SAMUEL 

269 

10: 19 

269 

14:39 

2 SAMUEL 

269 

22:  3 

I KINGS 

269 

2:  24 

2 KINGS 

44 

13:5 

NEHEMIAH 

269 

9:2 

269 

PSALMS 

PAGE 

2 

135,  215 

2:  2 

109,  216 

7 

135 

7:10 

269 

16: 10 

217 

17:7 

269 

29: 1 

224 

40:7 

76 

45:6,  7 

280 

89:27 

135 

106: 21 

269 

no 

46,  47, 

143,  283 

118:26 

76 

M 

0 

00 

PROVERBS 

88,  91 

3:12 

294 

8 : 22 

ISAIAH 

297 

9:1,  2 

193 

19:20 

269 

35:4 

132 

40: 1 

84,  132 

i-ii 

49 

3 

49,  143 

42:1 

113,  215 

43:3,  II 

269 

44:6 

295 

45:15,  21 

269 

23 

226",  233 

48:16 

294 

49:20 

269 

53 

54, 

132,  192 

53:7 

291 

60:16 

269 

61 : 1 

131, 

154,  190 

63:8 

269 

Index  of  Passages  of  Scripture  313 


JEREMIAH  PAGE 

PAGE 

2:  20 

45 

3:11 

40,  76,  130 

14:  8 

269 

14 

128 

EZEKIEL 

17 

78",  79,  80,  84^  90,  99,  128, 

16:38, 

60,  63  45 

130,  139,  246 

34:  II 

14I 

4:3.  6 

78,  128,  129,  134,  139,  154 

DANIEL 

11 

137 

7 

133 

16 

193 

7:9 

294 

18 

61** 

13 

24^  30,  38",  39.  42,  116,  122, 

5:17 

77! 

132,  133.  136",  221,  289, 

6:  24 

70 

295 

7:  21 

69,  70",  71",  129,  141,  142, 

14 

30,  38",  42,  136^  221 

154 

22-27  132 

7:22 

142 

10:16 

102 

29 

129 

HOSEA 

8:2,  6 

69.  70^ 

2: 19 

12,  45,  124" 

8 

69.  70".  154 

20 

13 

17 

128 

13:4 

269 

19 

67.  69 

ZECHARIAH 

20 

85.  87,  129,  135",  154,  166 

2:5 

265 

21 

69".  70^ 

4: 10 

295 

25 

69^  7o^  71“ 

9:9 

189 

27 

79.  99 

13:7 

12 

29 

78.  129,  139 

MALACHI 

9:  3 

99 

3:1 

76,  217 

6 

61,  87,  129 

4:5,  6 

217 

9 

62 

MATTHEW 

11 

66 

1:1  14,  17,  57®,  58“,  59,  62,  63, 

13 

77 

73,  78,  240,  243,  288 

15 

13.  84 

16 

17,  57.  58",  59^  6l^  62",  74, 

27 

18,  69,  78,  129 

240 

28 

69.  70“ 

17 

57.  58,  59.  60®,  61,  62®  74 

36 

13 

18 

14.  17.  57',  58^  59.  62,  63, 

10:  2 

61“ 

73,  184,  240,  242,  243,  288 

22 

154 

18-25  80 

23 

85,  86 

20 

131 

24 

67".  69,  71,  142" 

21 

57.  58*,  59.  64,  91,  107",  131, 

25 

67'.  69,  71,  91 

144 

33 

129 

23 

63,  88,  90,  132 

34. 

40  77" 

25 

58.  59 

11:2 

58^  59^  6o^  62^  65,  74^ 

2:2 

77.  131 

3 

60,  74,  76",  77,  128,  129,  130, 

4 

59.  76 

154.  190 

15 

78,  80 

10 

11 

23 

61,  63 

14 

76 

3:3 

II.  63,  73,  91,  143 

19 

85.  87,  129,  135,  154 

9 

112 

25 

70,  82" 

3H 

The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

PAGE 

PAGE 

n : 25-30 

82 

17:9 

85®,  87,  153 

26 

82 

18 : 10 

76,  85,  217 

27 

77,  79, 

81,  82,  83  ) 88,  90, 

12 

85®,  87,  152 

91,  92: 

, 140,  155,  156,  169, 

15 

69,  70’,  71 

200 

22 

85®,  87" 

12:8 

72,  87,  128,  129 

23 

85,  87,  154 

18 

84,  246 

24 

66 

22 

99 

26 

154 

23 

78,  79 

21 

69, 

24 

99 

25,  26,  27 

70 

32 

85,  87,  129 

31,  32,  34 

70 

35 

154 

19: 16 

66,  67,  69 

38 

66,  69 

28 

86^  136,  265 

40 

85’,  87,  129,  154 

20: 1 

68 

42 

10 

8 

70 

13:24 

68^  91 

15 

68,  91 

27 

70 

17 

58 

36 

68,  91 

18 

85®,  87" 

37 

69,  85,  87 

19 

85 

39 

137 

28 

77,  85,  87^  152 

41 

86",  129,  137 

30  18,  58,  59, 

69,  70®,  71,  78 

43 

87^“ 

31 

18,  70",  71^  78 

52 

68 

33 

69,  7o^  71 

54, 

55,  56 

99 

21 : 1 

58,  59 

57 

73 

3 7o‘,  72 

, 102,  141,  210 

14: 1 

58,  59 

4 

10 

28, 

30 

69,  70=* 

5 

10,  72,  77 

33 

79®,  129,  137,  138 

9 

18,  77,  78",  79 

15:2 

59 

10 

99 

22 

18, 

69,  70",  71,  78,  129 

11  12, 

> 58,  64,  73,  99 

25 

70" 

12 

58,  59 

27 

69,  70" 

15 

18,  78" 

16;  13 

85 

30 

70 

14 

73 

33 

68 

16 

15,  21, 

74,  79®,  85,  l29^ 

37 

81,  134,  139 

134,  137,  138,  243 

38 

81,  99 

17 

75,  129 

42 

68,  70 

20 

63,  75,  85 

44 

68 

21 

14,  57,  58%  59,  63,  74,  184, 

46 

12,  73 

240 

22: 1 

84,  91,  139 

22 

69,  70'* 

2 

45,  81 

27 

86 

•®,  87,  91,  137,  265 

16,  24,  36 

66,  67 

28 

86,  87 

41-46 

75 

17:4 

69,  70",  71® 

42 

18 

5 ! 

80,  84,  90,  99,  139,  215,  245 

43 

77,  91,  143 

8 

58- 

43-45 

70,  72 

Index  of  Passages  of  Scripture  315 


22:44 

PAGE 
70,  91 

45 

18,  47 

23 : 1-12 

8 

2 

65 

7 

6 

7>io 

67 

8 

67 

10 

67’,  75 

39 

77 

24:5 

75,  185 

23 

85 

27 

85’,  86 

30 

85,  86’,  91,  265 

31 

86’,  87^  137 

35 

156 

36 

81,  86,  88,  140,  153 

37 

86 

39 

, 85,  86 

42 

70,  72,  141 

43 

67,  68 

44 

72,  85,  86 

45,  46,  48, 

50  70 

25:1 

13",  45,  84,  91 

5,  6,  10 

13,  84 

II 

70’ 

18,  19 

70 

20,  21,  22 

71 

23,  24,  26 

71’ 

31  71,  77,  86,  87,  91,  136, 

137, 

265’ 

32 

13,  208 

34 

71,  77 

37 

70,  71,  91,  142 

40 

71,  77 

44 

70,  71,  91,  142 

26:  2 

85 

3,  14 

61,  62 

18 

67,  210 

22 

66,  69,  70’ 

24 

85 

25 

66,  69 

31 

13,  84 

31-46 

87 

36 

61,  62 

45 

85,  153 

48 

154 

PAGE 

26 : 49 

66,  69 

51 

58,  59 

61 

99 

63 

43,  74,  75,  79’,  85,  137 

64 

75,  85’,  86’,  91,  212 

68 

74 

69,  71 

58’,  64 

75 

58,  59 

27:7-10 

66 

II 

77 

16 

61 

17  17, 

58’,  61*,  62,  64,  75,  185, 

240 


17-22 

63 

22  17,  58®,  61 

’,  62,  64,  75,  185, 

240 

29 

77 

33 

61,  62 

37 

58*,  64,  77,  99 

40 

79,  80,  137 

42 

77 

43 

80,  134,  137 

47 

99 

54 

99,  138 

63 

70’ 

5 

58,  59’ 

6 

72 

9 

58,  59 

18 

51 

18-20 

81,  83,  88,  92,  94 

19  140,  156, 

170’,  1 71,  200, 

267 


MARK 

5,  14,  15.  17,  32»  52,  57. 

58,  150,  152’,  184,  240,  243, 
288 

9’,  ii’,  12,  55,  143,  151 
76 
33 
5 

151 

13,  21,  22*,  33,  44,  52,  128, 
134.  139,  150,  152,  246 

37,  128,  137 
9,  33,  51,  52,  128 


3 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

13 

22 


316 

The  Designation 

s of  Our  Lord 

PAGE 

PAGE 

1:24  5,  6 

",  20",  44,  55,  1 14",  128, 

9:7 

13,  21,  22^  44,  52, 

99,  134, 

129, 

, 151,  153,  217 

139,  150,  152,  246 

25,  26 

21 

9 

24,  28, 

153,  153 

27 

9,  33,  34,  51,  52,  129 

II 

40" 

34 

20,  44,  128  130,  152 

12 

24,  28^ 

55,  152" 

35 

40 

17 

8,  71 

38 

39,  40",  52,  128 

25 

52 

41 

32 

31 

24,  28^  53, 

151,  153 

2:5 

137 

38 

8',  69 

7 

29,  41,  99 

41 

15,  16, 

23,  185 

8 

209 

10:17, 

20 

8 

10  24,  29,  33,  41,  51,  52,  128, 

33 

24,  28,  53,  151,  152 

136, 

, 151^,  152,  208 

34 

28^  1 51 

II 

52 

35 

8'-' 

17 

39,  40,  52 

37 

151,  265 

18 

12 

45 

24,  28^  39,  40,  52^ 

55,  135, 

19,  20 

12,  13,  45,  151 

152" 

28  9",  1I^  24,  29,  33,  41,  51,  52, 

47 

5',  6^ 

, 18,  150 

128' 

136,  150",  152 

48 

18,  150 

3:11  19', 

20,  43,  44,  1 14®,  129, 

49 

18 

134: 

. 139,  152 

51 

7, 

9,  18,  71 

20-30 

34 

52 

18 

27 

51 

II : I 

153 

4: 38 

7,  8^  69 

3 

9",  10,  12,  52, 

102,  14I, 

41 

33,  51,  52,  99,  129 

150,  210 

5:7  5,  6, 

19",  44,  129,  130,  134, 

9 

10,  39 

i39» 

150,  152,  153 

10 

10, 

, I8^  39 

19 

9 

21 

7,  69 

35 

8 

12 

21,  42 

42 

33,  51 

2, 

4 

42 

43 

52,  128 

6 

21,  22^  23,  42,  44, 

. 45,  52, 

6:2,  3 

99 

139,  150,  178 

4.  15 

12‘‘ 

7 

42,  99,  150 

34 

13 

9 

9 

51 

138 

14 

8 

7:15-19 

12 

17 

151 

28 

7,  9,  12,  152 

19 

8 

8:28 

12",  151 

25 

152 

29 

15*,  17,  23  150,  151,  152 

32 

8 

30 

15 

35 

15  , 16",  i8  , 23,  46,  52,  150, 

31  16,  17,  24,  28,  152,  153 

151 

32 

17 

36 

9®,  10,  II",  ^2^ 

143,  224 

38  21,  22,  24^  26,  28,  29 , 30, 

37 

9®,  10,  ii^  12^,  16, 

47,  143, 

37, 

41,  136,  137,  151,  168, 

224 

265  i3-’i 


7,  69,  71  20 


9’5 


8,  69 

151 


Index  of  Passages  of  Scripture 


317 


PAGE  page 


13:21 

15",  23,  152 

1:76 

105®, 

, 106 

26 

24",  28,  30,  41^  1 5 1,  265 

2:9 

145 

27 

28,  29",  30,  37,  137 

n 

17, 

102,  103, 

104, 

105, 

107, 

32 

2I^  23",  28,  36,  44,  45,  50, 

112,  130,  131, 

> 14I: 

. 144, 

145, 

140,  152,  153,  156,  171 

298 

35 

9,  ii^  12,  52,  141 

15 

145 

14: 14 

8,  210 

21 

97 

20 

151 

23 

114, 

115 

21 

24,  28",  55,  152 

26 

97, 

109, 

130, 

145 

27 

12,  13 

30 

107 

36 

21,  22 

32 

193 

41 

24,  28,  152=* 

43 

97 

45 

7 

46 

100 

6i 

15",  16,  19,  24,  44",  150“, 

49 

I18, 

128 

152" 

52 

97 

62 

15,  16",  19,  20,  21,  24“,  28", 

3:4 

104, 

105, 

106 

30,  41,  43,  44,  45,  136, 

6 

107 

137,  150,  151",  152,  168 

8 

112 

63 

16,  20,  43 

12 

100 

67 

5^  6 

16 

76, 

122 

15:2 

18,  150 

21 

97 

7 

61,  62 

22 

115,  117, 

128, 

139, 

246 

32 

15“,  I6^  I8^  150,  152 

23 

97 

39 

19,  44",  45,  99,  134,  138, 

4:1 

97 

152 

3, 

9 

ii6,  128, 

129, 

139, 

154 

i6;6 

5,  6 

17 

128 

19 

5,  98,  206 

18 

123, 

128 

20 

5 

24 

107 

32 

128 

LUKE 

34 

20, 

98,  99*,  1 1 3*, 

II4, 

122, 

1 : 16 

106 

128 

!,  153,  217 

17 

105^  106 

38 

71 

24 

113 

41 

97, 

in,  116, 

128, 

129, 

139 

27 

131 

43 

40, 

123*, 

128 

31 

97,  98 

5:4 

100 

32 

99,  no,  112,  116,  117,  130, 

5 

lOO^ 

lOI^ 

142 

131,  139,  144 

8 

97,  IOI^ 

102, 

128, 

142=^ 

33 

no,  1 31 

10 

97 

34 

no 

12 

lOI 

35 

78,  no,  114,  ii6,  117,  130, 

21 

99 

139,  144 

24 

120, 

I2I, 

129 

38 

123 

32 

122 

43 

102,  105,  142 

34, 

35 

123 

45 

103,  144 

6:5 

120, 

I2I, 

128, 

129 

47,  68-79  107 

22 

120^ 

129 

69 

112 

40 

100 

The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 


318 


PAGE 

PAGE 

6:46 

101,  141,  154 

12:8 

120’,  1 2 1* 

7:6 

lOI,  154 

9, 

10 

120 

13 

97,  102,  103 

13 

99 

16 

io6,  107“ 

36 

102,  121,  122,  142* 

18 

60 

40 

120,  I2I* 

19  76, 

97,  102,  103,  122,  128, 

41 

lOl 

154,  190 

42 

97,  102",  103 

20 

122,  190 

43 

102,  142“ 

31 

102 

13:15 

97,  102,  103 

33 

122 

23, 

25 

lOl 

34 

120,  I2I,  129,  154 

33, 

34 

107 

39 

99",  106 

14:  21 

lOl 

40,  49 

99 

15:2 

99 

8:24 

71,  100 

16:15 

208 

28  98,  99, 

116,  129,  139,  153 

17:5,  6 

97,  102,  103 

41 

97 

13 

98,  100^ 

45 

100 

22, 

24 

120,  121^ 

49 

99 

25 

121 

9:8,  14 

106 

26, 

30 

120,  121 

20 

15,  109,  III 

37 

lOl 

22 

120,  121^  153 

18:6 

97,  102,  103 

26 

120, 

I2I^  122^  137,  265 

8 

120,  121^,  122 

33 

71,  100 

18 

99 

36 

97 

31 

120,  121^ 

38 

71,  99 

32 

120 

44 

120,  121 

33 

I2I 

48 

123 

37 

97^  98,  99 

49 

100 

38 

98,  112 

50 

97 

39 

112 

58 

120,  121,  129,  154 

40 

97 

59,  61 

101 

41 

lOI 

H 

0 

M 

97,  102,  103 

19:  8 

97,  lOI,  102,  103 

3 

192,  290 

10 

107,  120^  122,  135 

16 

123 

14 

99 

17 

lOI 

31 

102“,  106,  I4I^  210 

21 

118" 

34 

102^,  141 

22 

1 1 8*, 

140,  155,  156,  169 

38 

112 

25 

99 

39 

99 

27 

118 

20: 13 

117,  139,  178 

39 

97,  103 

14 

99,  “7 

40 

101,  102 

41 

103,  III,  112 

41 

97,  102,  103 

21:7 

99 

13 : 1 

101 

27 

120,  I21^  122 

30 

120,  121,  154 

36 

120,  I2I 

39 

97,  102,  103 

22:11 

99,  210 

45 

99 

21 

99 

M 


Index  of  Passages 

of  Scripture  319 

PAGE 

PAGE 

22:22 

120,  I2I  I 

:8 

178,  193 

28 

99 

9 

178,  190,  193,  273 

29 

II8® 

II 

76,  190 

31 

102 

14 

177,  178",  195,  197,  199,  225, 

33» 

38 

lOI 

265 

39 

99 

15 

190 

47 

61,  154 

17 

14,  57,  177,  183,  184,  243, 

48 

97,  120,  121 

288 

49 

lOI 

18 

178,  195,  197,  199* 

52 

97 

20 

183,  217 

61 

97®,  102®,  103* 

21 

217 

67 

III® 

23 

181 

69 

120,  121® 

25 

183 

70 

116,  137 

27 

76,  190 

23:2 

16, 

17.  99,  III",  112 

29 

192®,  290,  291 

3 

112 

30 

180®,  190 

4.  14 

99' 

33 

180 

18, 

22,  23,  25 

99 

34 

180,  192,  195 

28 

97 

35 

291 

34 

118 

36 

192® 

35 

III,  113,  114 

38 

7,  69,  180® 

37 

112 

41 

183®,  192 

38 

99,  112 

42 

100 

39 

HI® 

45 

180,  217 

41 

99 

49 

69,  180,  189,  190,  195® 

42 

98 

51 

24 

43 

209  2 

: II 

225,  265 

46 

118 

13 

245 

24:3 

98,  102®,  206 

16 

196 

7 

120®,  121®  3: 

: 2 

6,  7,  69,  180®,  181 

99 

15 

194 

5 

97 

16 

178,  195,  196,  197,  198 

6 

130 

16-21  179 

19 

12,  97,  98, 

99,  106,  107,  218 

17 

191,  195,  196,  197,  199 

21 

65,  107 

18 

178 

25 

130 

19 

190,  193 

26 

111,  265 

20 

193 

34 

102,  103® 

21 

193,  197 

46 

III® 

26 

180® 

49 

118 

28 

183 

JOHN  29 

i:i  177®,  178®,  182,  199,  240  31,  34 

2 180  35 

178,  193  36 

178,  193,  273  4:1 

40®,  178,  193  5 


12,  13’,  45»  194 
191 

119.  i95»  196*,  198 
I95^  196=* 
179,  181 
61 


320 

The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

ri 

PAGE 

PAGEr 

4:  II, 

15  69,  181 

6:53 

194' 

19 

12,  69,  181,  182 

62 

194) 

21, 

22  196 

65 

196'! 

25 

183",  190" 

68 

69, 

I8I,  217! 

26 

183 

69 

20",  1 1 3, 

1 14,  I9IJ 

29 

180",  183,  193 

7:  5 

263^ 

31 

69,  180 

15 

i8oj 

34 

191 

16,  18 

I9I J 

42 

107,  180,  193 

25 

1801 

44 

182 

26 

180,  1831 

49 

69,  181 

27 

183,  I90J 

5 = 2 

61 

28,  29 

19I) 

7 

69,  181 

31 

180, 

, 183,  I90I 

12 

180 

33 

191 ; 

17 

196 

35 

180  j 

i8 

187,  196,  197,  198 

40 

12,  180, 

182,  217!'' 

19 

195',  196',  197 

41 

180,  183^, 

193,  217  £ 

20, 

21,  22  195,  196^  197 

42 

183  1 

23 

191,  I95^  196* 

46,  51 

180^  i 

24 

191 

52 

182  ) 

27 

194,  196 

8 : 12 

193"  3 

30 

191 

14-16 

191  ; 

36, 

37  191,  196 

16,  18 

191,  196 

43 

190,  196 

19 

119, 

187,  196"! 

44 

187 

26 

191  f 

45 

196 

27 

196  I 

6 : 14 

12,  76,  180,  182,  190^  217 

28 

195,  196  I 

15 

w 

6^ 

00 

M 

29 

191  j 

23 

179,  I8I 

36 

195,  196! 

25 

180 

38 

196" 

27 

20,  192,  194",  196 

40 

180 

29 

19I 

42 

40^  191“ 

32 

196 

49,  54 

196 

33 

193 

9:2 

69,  180 

34 

69,  181 

4 

191 

35 

193 

5 

193 

37 

196 

II,  16 

180" 

38, 

39  191 

17 

12,  182 

40 

195,  196,  197 

22 

183 

41 

193 

24 

180* 

42 

180 

33 

180 

44 

191,  196 

35 

195^  196 

45 

196 

36,  38 

69,  181 

46 

1 1 9,  180,  196^ 

39 

190 

49 

193 

10:  2 

13,  193 

50, 

52  180 

7,  9 

193 

Index  of  Passages  of  Scripture 


321 


PAGE 


10: 10 

190 

II, 

14 

193 

15 

119,  187,  196* 

16 

193 

17, 

18 

196 

24 

183 

25, 

29 

196 

30 

119,  187,  196,  197,  198,  200 

32 

196 

33 

• 

180,  196 

36 

20^  21 

, 114",  134,  191,  192, 

195', 

196^ 

37 

196 

38 

196^  197,  198,  200 

11 ; 2 

179,  181 

3 

69,  181 

4 

21,  195",  196 

8 

69,  180 

9» 

10 

193 

12 

69,  181 

16 

61 

21 

69,  181 

25, 

193,  273 

27 

69, 

181,  183,  190,  195* 

28 

180,  181 

32, 

34 

69,  181 

37 

180" 

39 

69,  i8i 

42 

191 

47, 

50 

180 

54 

61 

12: 13 

181,  189,  190 

14 

10 

15 

10,  189,  190 

21 

70,  1 81 

23 

194 

26, 

27,  28 

196 

34 

24,  183,  194 

35, 

36 

193 

38 

181 

44, 

45 

191 

46, 

47 

191",  193 

49 

191,  196 

50 

196 

13:1,  3 

196 

6,  9 

69,  181 

PAGE 

13:13  180^181^210,224 


13-16 

69 

14 

180^,  181^ 

16 

180 

20 

40,  1 91 

25 

69,  181 

31 

194 

36 

69,  181 

37 

181 

: 2 

196 

5 

69,  181 

6 

196,  273 

7 

187,  196 

8 

69,  181 

9 119,  187,  196,  197,  198,  200, 
225 

10,  II,  12 

196 

13 

195,  196" 

16 

193,  196 

20,  21 

196 

22 

69,  181 

23 

196 

24 

191,  196 

26 

196 

28 

196, 

197",  198 

31 

196“ 

I,  8,  9,  10 

196 

II 

7 

15 

180,  196 

16 

196 

20 

180 

21 

191 

22 

190 

24,  26,  28 

196 

3 

196 

5 

191 

10 

196 

15 

119,  196 

17,  23,  25, 

26,  27 

196 

28 

191,  196" 

32 

196 

I 

184, 

195,  196" 

2 

184, 

185,  197 

3 14,  177, 

179,  183^ 

184,  191, 

240,  243",  273 


196,  225,  265 


5 


4 

322  \The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 


PAGE 

PAGE 

17:6 

II9 

1:7 

213* 

8 

191" 

14,  16  204 

10 

II9 

21 

98,  209,  210 

II 

196 

24 

207^  208“,  21 1 

18 

191 

2: 20 

210,  226 

21 

191,  196 

21 

210,  219 

22 

265 

22 

204,  218 

23 

191 

22-36  212 

24 

196,  265 

25 

226 

25 

191,  196 

27 

216,  217 

18:5,  7 

180 

30 

216 

II 

196 

31 

210 

14.  17,  29, 

30 

180 

32 

204,  214"* 

33 

189 

33 

210,  213 

37 

189®,  190 

34 

209,  210,  211 

39 

189 

36 

104,  109^  204,  209,  210^ 

19:3 

189 

211^  212,  214 

5 

180 

38 

14,  186,  205,  208,  219 

7 

195 

47 

209,  21 1 

12 

189 

3:2 

61,  63 

13 

61,  62 

3 

217 

15 

189 

6 

14,  i86,  204,  205,  219^ 

17 

62 

13 

204,  212,  215 

19 

180,  189 

14 

215,  216*,  217 

21 

189 

15 

210,  217,  225,  282 

20:2,  13 

181 

16 

210,  219 

15 

70,  181 

18 

214,  216 

16 

7,  180* 

20 

14,  204,  205,  206®,  214,  242, 

17 

196 

243 

18 

181 

21-26  216 

20 

179,  i8i 

22 

12,  215,  216,  217 

21 

191",  196 

23 

216 

24 

61 

26 

212,  215^  216 

25 

i8i 

4:2 

204 

28 

181,  187,  200 

7 

219 

29 

200 

8-12  212 

31  176,  179, 

183,  189,  195", 

10 

14,  186,  204,  205,  219^ 

240 

12 

210,  219 

121:2 

61 

13 

204 

7,  12 

179,  181 

17 

219 

15 

181,  192,  290* 

i8 

204^,  219 

20,  21 

181 

19, 

24-30  208 

ACTS 

25-27  216 

203,  204,  207 

26 

109 

4 

213" 

27 

204“,  215,  216“ 

6 

210 

28 

204’,  215,  216,  319 

Index  of  Passages  of  Scripture  323 


PAGE 

PAGE 

4:33 

98, 

206,  209,  210 

10:  36 

14,  205,  210^  211“ 

5:14 

209,  21 1 

38 

204'* 

28 

219 

42 

217,  2i8,  250 

29-32 

212 

43 

208,  218,  219 

30 

204 

48 

14,  205,  210,  219 

31 

107, 

208,  217,  282 

11 : 16 

209,  210 

40 

204^  219 

17  14,  98,  205  , 207,  209,  210 

41 

219* 

20 

98,  206,  209,  210 

42 

14. 

204,  205, 

206,  214,  242 

21 

209^  211^ 

6:4 

61 

23 

209,  211 

14 

204^ 

24 

211 

7:37 

12,  17 

26 

63 

52 

212,  216,  217 

12:11,  17 

209 

55 

204 

13:2,  10,  II,  12  209,  21 1 

56 

212,  218 

16-41 

212 

59 

98,  207^ 

208,  209,  210 

23 

107,  204,  217 

60 

207^  208  , 210 

24 

217 

8:5 

212,  214 

33 

204,  213,  218 

12 

14. 

186,  205,  219 

35 

216,  217 

16 

98,  206 

, 209,  210,  219 

44,  47,  48  21 1 

22, 

24 

209 

49 

209,  211 

25 

209,  21 1 

14:3 

209,  211 

32 

192,  240 

10 

210 

35 

204 

23 

209,  21 1 

37 

14,  186 

15:8 

208 

39 

2II 

II 

207,  209,  210 

9: 1 

209,  210 

14,  17 

219 

5 

204“,  207,  2I0‘‘‘ 

26  14 

, 98,  205^  207,  209,  210, 

6 

210“ 

219 

10 

207,  209,  210^ 

35»  36 

209,  211 

II 

209,  210 

40 

209 

13 

207,  210 

16: 10 

210 

14 

219 

14 

209,  211 

15 

209,  210,  219 

15 

211 

16 

219 

18 

14,  205,  219 

17 

204,  209,  210 

31 

98,  207,  209,  210,  217 

20 

204", 

212,  213,  215 

32 

209,  211 

21 

219 

17:3 

14’,  204,  205,  206,  214 

22 

213,  214 

7,  18 

204 

27 

204^ 

209,  210,  219 

31 

21 8^  250 

28 

210 

18:  5 

14,  204,  205,  206,  214 

29 

209 

8,  9 

209,  21 1 

31 

209,  21 1 

25 

204,  209,  210,  211 

34 

205 

28 

14,  204,  205,  206,  214 

35» 

42 

209,  21 1 

19:4 

204 

10:  34-42 

210 

5 

98,  206,  209,  210,  219 

324 

The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 

PAGE 

PAGE 

19 : lo 

2II 

5:19 

247 

13 

98, 

204^  206,  209,  210,  219 

21 

232 

15 

204 

6:4 

241,  253 

17 

98,  206,  209,  210,  219 

8,  9 

241 

20 

209,  21 1 

23 

239 

20:19 

209,  21 1 

7:4 

45 

21 

98. 

205’,  207,  209,  210,  217 

8:3  225, 

233,  250,  251=^ 

24 

98,  207,  209,  210,  217 

9,  10 

241 

28 

210,  218^,  245,  248 

15 

253 

31 

14 

17 

241 

35 

98,  207,  209,  210,  217 

29 

251 

21 : 13 

98, 

, 207,  209,  210,  217,  219 

32 

250,  251" 

14 

21 1 

34 

232 

N 

00 

204®,  207,  210 

39 

239 

10 

207,  2 1 o'* 

9:1 

241 

14 

216,  217 

5 21 1,  236’,  240,  248,  250,  254, 

16 

208,  210,  219 

255.  259 

19 

207,  210 

20 

251 

23 : II 

209,  210 

10:4 

241 

24:24 

14,  205,  2o6^  242 

6,  7 

240,  241 

25;  19 

204 

9 

225,  226^ 

26:9 

204',  219 

12  223,  227,  231,  232 

10 

210 

13 

226  , 231,  232 

15 

204,  207,  209,  210 

17 

241 

17 

210 

II : I,  2,  3,  8 

227 

23 

214,  217 

12:  5 

241 

28:  23 

204 

19 

227 

31 

14, 

98,  205^  207,  209,  210 

14:4 

227 

6 

233 

ROMANS 

9 

224,  231,  241 

1 : z 

242,  288 

II 

226",  227,  233 

3 

248,  25I^  259 

15 

241 

4 223,  225",  248,  249  , 251  , 259 

15:6 

233,  252 

7 

227,  253 

8,  18,  20 

241 

9 

251 

38 

230^ 

2:  16 

232 

16:5,  7,  9,  10 

241 

3 : 22 

232 

18 

239 

25 

233 

27 

235 

30 

235 

1 CORINTHIANS 

5:1 

232 

1 : 2 

232 

6,  8 

241 

3 

227,  252,  253 

8-10 

252 

8 

233 

10 

233»  251,  252-* 

9 

251 

XI 

232,  252 

12,  17,  23,  24 

241 

15 

247' 

31 

226^  232 

*7 

232 

2:8  223,  224,  231, 

236,  248,  265 

Index  of  Passages  of  Scripture 


325 


PAGE 

PAGE 

2: 10 

241 

3:3,  14 

241 

x6 

232 

16 

226^  232 

3:1 

241 

4:4  225, 

250,^  254‘‘ 

5 

227 

5 225, 

226“,  239 

23 

233, 

241* 

6 

241 

4:  I,  10,  15 

241 

5:10 

233 

19 

227 

16 

240,  241 

5*7 

241 

17 

241 

6:15 

241 

18 

233,  241 

7: 17 

227 

19,  20 

241 

22 

241 

6:  15 

241 

8:4 

188, 

235 

8:9  225,  233, 

250,  259 

4-6 

228 

21 

232 

5 

187, 

, 227 

10:  7 

241= 

6 223, 

227,  228, 

229, 

232, 

253 

17 

226,  232 

11,  12 

241 

n : 2 

45 

9:  21 

241 

3,  10,  13,  23 

241 

10: 9 

226'' 

31 

233 

16,  22 

232 

12:2,  10,  19 

241 

26 

226 

13:13 

267 

31 

233 

14  170, 

188,  230'* 

11 : 1 

241 

3 

233 

GALATIANS 

20 

288 

I : I 

288 

26 

224, 

239 

3 

227,  253 

27 

224 

4 

253 

31 

252 

6,  10 

241 

12:3 

226^, 

227, 

239 

16 

251^ 

4-6 

230, 

267 

22 

241 

27 

241 

2: 16 

241 

15:3.  12, 

13,  14,  16 

241 

17 

240,  241" 

17,  18 

, 19,  20 

241 

20 

24I^  251" 

21 

247 

21 

241 

23 

241 

3:  13,  16 

241 

24 

253 

20 

235 

27 

233 

24,  27,  29 

241 

28 

233 

251, 

253" 

4:4  225, 

25I^  252 

31 

239 

4-6 

253 

45,  47,  48,  49 

247 

6 

251,  253" 

19 

241 

a CORINTHIANS 

5:1,  2,  4 

241 

z : 2 

227 

3 

233, 

253 

EPHESIANS 

19 

251 

1 : 2 

227,  253 

21 

241 

3 222,  234, 

241,  252 

2:10,  15, 

17 

241 

5 

233 

326 


The  Designal  ions  of  Our  Lord 


32 


1 : 6 

17 

20 

2:11 

12 

18 
3 -I 

II 

14 

4:1 

4 

4-6 

5 

6 

8,  10 

13 

15) 

5:  5 
9 

20 

21 
28 
32 

6:4 
9 

23 


1 : 2 
10,  13, 
20,  21, 
2: 1 
6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

16,  30 
3:8 
9 

20 

21 
4:  20 


PHILIPPIANS 

17,  18 
23,  29 


1 : 2 
3» 


12 


PAGE 

PAGE 

245 

1:13 

246,  25I^  253" 

234, 

253 

15 

254'.  297 

233 

15-19 

250 

62 

16, 

17 

224 

241 

19 

233 

253 

27. 

28 

241 

242 

2:2,  5 

241 

239, 

242 

6 

239,  242 

253 

8 

241 

231 

9 

236 

230 

10 

233 

267 

19 

231 

227 

20 

241 

233, 

253 

3:11 

241 

232 

17 

253 

250, 

251' 

24 

226,  239 

241 

4:1 

231 

245 

II 

61 

233 

244, 

253 

I 

THESSALONIANS 

241 

I : I 

227,  230,  243,  253 

13 

3 

253 

241 

9 

187 

22  6'“* 

10 

240,  251“ 

231 

2:  6 

241 

227, 

253 

14 

206,  243 

3:1 

243 

227, 

253 

II 

227,  253 

241 

13 

233.  253 

241 

4:6 

232 

241 

16 

241 

, 248, 

251 

5:2 

233 

235» 

248 

9 

243 

248 

18 

206,  243 

224', 

250 

23, 

28 

243 

» 232, 

233 

226, 

253 

2 

THESSALONIANS 

241 

I : I 

227,  253 

239, 

241 

2 

227,  230,  253" 

241 

7 

233 

244 

8 

232 

225, 

233 

9 

226^  232'“ 

253 

10 

233' 

12 

227,  232,  245 

241, 

253 

2:2 

233 

253 

16 

253 

COLOSSIANS 


Index  of  Passages  of  Scripture  327 


1: 1 

I TIMOTHY  PAGE 

244,  245 

2 

227,  253 

2:3 

244,  245 

5 

232,  235,  247" 

3 : 16 

265 

4: 10 

244 

1 : 2 

2 TIMOTHY 

227,  253 

8 

269 

10 

244 

2:  19 

226=* 

22 

232 

4: 14 

226=^ 

18 

232 

1:3 

TITUS 

244,  245 

4 

227,  244,  245,  253 

2: 10 

244 

13 

244.  245",  25 5^  265 

3:4 

244,  245 

6 

23 3»  244,  245 

3 

PHILEMON 

253 

6,  8,  20 

241 

1 : 2 

HEBREWS 

277,  278,  279,  281 

3 

265 

4 

37,  43 

5 

277^  280 

6 

281 

8 

277,  278 

10 

277“,  278 

2:2 

278 

3 

277' 

8 

37 

9 

265,  277 

10 

282^ 

17 

277,  283 

3:1 

277^  282,  283 

6 

43,  276,  277 

14 

276 

4:  12 

178 

14 

277',  283 

15 

277,  283 

PAGE 

5:5 

276,  277 

6 

277,  283 

7 

268 

8 

277 

9 

288=* 

10 

277,  283'" 

6:1 

276 

3 

277 

20  277", 

282^  283 

7:3,  11 

277^  283 

14 

277" 

15,  17,  21 

277,  283 

22 

277 

26 

283 

28 

277 

8: 1,  4 

277,  283 

6 

282 

9:11  276, 

277,  283 

14 

276 

15 

282 

24,  28 

276 

10: 10 

277* 

21 

277,  283 

29 

277 

11:17 

197 

26 

276 

12:  2 

277,  282" 

14 

278 

24 

277,  28a 

13:8,  12 

277 

20 

277®,  283 

21 

277,  281 

JAMES 

I : I 

264® 

2 : 1 

264“ 

5:7,  8 

264® 

10,  II 

265 

14,  15 

264® 

1 PETER 

I : I 

267,  288 

2 

267 

3 

267,  268 

5 

273 

7,  II,  13 

267 

19  192, 

267,  290 

2:3,  5,  13,  21,  25 

267 

328 


The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 


PAGE 

PACE 

3:15 

226,  267'* 

5:13 

271,  274 

16,  i8,  21  267 

15 

272 

4:1,  11,  14 

267 

18 

271 

13 

265,  267 

20 

20,  217,  271,  272®,  273 

5:1,  lo,  14 

267 

2 JOHN 

2 PETER 

3 

27I^  238 

I : X 

245,  269,  270,  288 

7,  9 

271 

2,  8 

269^  270 

3 JOHN 

II 

245,  269^  270* 

7 

219',  274 

14,  16 

269“ 

JUDE 

17 

270 

I 

263,  264,  288 

2: 1 

245,  270 

4 

245,  266,  270 

20 

245,  269^  270" 

17,  21,  25  266 

3:3 

245,  269 

3 

268 

THE  APOCALYPSE 

8,  9,  10 

268^  269^ 

I ; I 

288" 

12 

265,  269^ 

4 

296 

15 

268^  269“ 

5 

288*,  290,  291®,  293"* 

18 

245,  269^  270" 

6 

288,  297 

7 

289,  292 

I JOHN 

8 

294,  295 

1 : 1 

178,  271 

9,  10 

288 

2 

273 

13 

289* 

3 

271,  272^  274,  288 

14 

289,  295* 

7 

271,  272 

17 

295,  297 

2: 1 

271* 

18 

293’,  294’,  295",  296 

8 

273 

2:  X 

288,  293 

12 

274 

8 

293,  295,  297 

20 

20,  217 

12 

288,  293 

22 

271* 

18 

288,  293*,  295,  297 

3:8 

271 

23 

294',  295 

II,  12 

272 

27 

288,  297 

23 

271,  272,  274 

3:1 

293 

4:2,  3 

271 

2 

288 

9 

178,  197,  271,  272,  274 

5 

288,  297 

10 

271,  272 

7 

20,  217,  288,  292,  293,  294 

10-14 

272 

12 

288 

13 

271 

14 

291,  297* 

14,  15 

271*,  272 

19 

295 

5:1 

271* 

21 

288,  297 

5 

271,  272" 

4:3 

296 

6 

271 

II 

269 

8 

272 

5:4 

292 

9,  10,  II 

271 

5 

288,  293 

12 

271*,  272 

6 

290,  295 

Index  of  Passages  of  Scripture 

329 

PAGE 

PAGE 

5:8,  9,  12 

290 

17 : 14  288,  290, 

291,  293,  294 

13 

293,  294 

19:7 

13,  45,  290 

6: 1,  i6 

290 

9 

290 

7:9 

290 

10 

288* 

10 

244,  290 

II 

291 

I4»  17 

290 

12 

295 

ii:i5 

269,  288^  294 

13 

178,  289 

12:5 

289 

x6 

288,  293 

10 

288" 

20:4 

00 

00 

IX 

290 

6 

288*,  294 

13 

289 

21:2 

45 

17 

288 

6 

295 

13:8,  12 

290 

9 

45,  290 

14: 10 

290 

14,  22,  27 

290 

12,  13 

288 

22:1,  3 

290,  294 

14 

289' 

16 

288,  293 

15:3 

290 

20 

288 

17:6 

288 

21 

00 

00 

III.  Index  of  Authors  Cited 


{The  superior  figures  in  this  Index  indicate  the  number  of  times  an 
author  is  quoted  on  a given  page) 


Abbott,  Ezra,  255 
Abbott,  E.  A.,  149,  168 
Africanus,  Julius,  266 
Alexander,  J.  A.,  8,  10,  47,  60,  65, 
208 

Allen,  W.  C.,  43,  77,  80,  81,  83,  84, 

90,  113,  171 
Ambrose,  105 

Bacon,  B.  W.,  295 
Barde,  206,  208,  219 
Bartlet,  55 
Bassett,  265 

Baumgarten-Crusius,  40,  208 
Baur,  223 
Beda,  105 

Bengel,  40,  105,  no,  143,  208,  265 
Berlin  Aegypt.  Urkunden  {The)j 
70 

Beyschlag,  234,  235 
Bigg,  266,  267,  268*,  270^ 

Bisping,  105,  106,  208 
Blass,  59®,  67,  106,  208,  219 
Bleek,  108,  110,  281 
Blom,  A.  H.,  206^,  208'*,  212,  213, 
215,  216“ 

Bornemann-Meyer,  240 
Bousset,  26,  41,  113,  126,  134,  158, 
163,  164,  165,  166®,  167,  174, 
193,  256^  257,  259,  287,  295 
Briggs,  41,  42 
Bristow,  J.  B.,  115 
Bruce,  172 
Burkitt,  153 
Castalio,  105 

Charles,  13,  42",  55^  56,  84,  113, 
126,  247 

330 


Chase,  F.  H.,  172,  219 
Cheyne,  24 
Clemens,  J.  S.,  296 
Clementine  Homilies,  270 
Conybeare,  171^  173,  219 
Cremer,  171,  173,  282 

Dale,  R.  W.,  i 

Dalman,  7^,  8,  ii*,  i6^  17*,  18,  19^ 
23,  26",  27,  37,  38*,  39“,  41*,  46, 
47",  55,  61,  65,  efy  88,  loi, 
104",  129,  I33^  134,  135,  166, 
168,  169" 

Daplyn,  E.,  84,  247 
Davidson,  A.  B.,  49^,  276^  279,  280, 
281,  283,  285,  293,  296 
Delitzsch,  6,  16,  47^,  67,  280,  281 
Denney,  283,  285 
De  Wette,  109^,  208,  219,  289^ 
Drummond,  R.  B.,  126,  255 
Diisterdieck,  296 
Dwight,  255 

Ebrard,  186 
Edersheim,  76^ 

Edwards,  T.  C.,  224,  235 
Encyclopedia  Biblica,  168 
Eusebius,  172,  173,  203,  266 
Euthymius  Zigabenus,  40,  105 
Evans,  235 
Ewald,  108 

Feine,  Paul,  206,  223,  226,  232,  234, 
240^  242,  243^ 

Felton,  208 
Fritzsche,  16,  62 

Fritzsche,  Volkmar,  24,  166,  170 


Index  of  Names 


331 


Gabler,  211 

Gebhardt,  287,  289,  290,  291,  295, 
296 

Geden  and  Moulton,  58 

Gess,  124,  251 

Giesebrecht,  219 

Gloag,  206,  208,  219 

Godet,  102,  no,  117,  119,  124’,  186 

Goebel,  Siegfried,  24 

Gray,  G.  B.,  219 

Gressman,  Hugo,  24 

Grosart,  A.  B.,  192,  290 

Grotius,  40 

Gwatkin,  302 

Hackett,  208,  219 

Hahn,  2o^  105,  108,  109,  no,  112, 
117,  119 

Harnack,  153^  170,  171^  202^,  203 ^ 
211,  237,  241" 

Hase,  119 

Hastings’  Dictionary  of  the  Bible, 
12,  63,  172,  247 

Hastings’  Dictionary  of  Christ  and 
the  Gospels,  217 
Haupt,  106 
Hausleiter,  240 
Hawkins,  16 
Heinrici-Meyer,  224,  239 
Hellwag,  136,  137 
Hengstenberg,  289^ 

Herner,  Sven,  9,  n,  49,  102,  105, 
208^,  209,  210,  227,  264^  268, 
277 

Hoekstra,  291,  295 
Hofmann,  108,  119,  280 
Holtzmann,  5,  6,  lo^  n,  14,  15,  18, 
20,  40,  59,  67^  io8^  109,  no, 
112,  114,  166,  171,  286,  287, 
289,  291 

Holtzmann,  O.,  302 
Hort,  82,  172,  218,  267,  268 

Irenaeus,  237 
Issel,  Ernst,  114 

Julicher,  259 


Kalthoff,  Albert,  163,  164,  165 
Keil,  16,  20,  62,  108,  113 
Keim,  6,  119,  167 
Knowling,  R.  J.,  116,  220,  221,  223, 
251* 

Kostlin,  295 
Kiibel,  61 
Kiinoel,  106^ 

Kurtz,  281 

Lange,  40 
Lechler,  208 
Lightfoot,  249,  270 
Loisy,  Abbe,  170 
Lowrie,  281 
Liinemann,  281 
Lutgert,  145 
Luthardt,  186 
Luther,  109 

MacFarland,  Charles  S.,  159 
Maier,  281 
Maldonatus,  40 
Martineau,  37,  169 
Mason,  A.  J.,  23 
Massie,  296 

Mathews,  Shailer,  21®,  131^  133, 
160,  168^,  169,  175 
Mayor,  263,  264,  265,  266^  270 
Meyer,  6,  10,  16,  18,  19,  23®,  40^, 
43,  47,  57,  61,  99,  106,  107, 
108^,  109,  no,  178,  187,  208, 
211,  219",  225",  246,  251,  287 
Moulton,  J.  H.,  59 
Moulton  and  Geden,  58 
Moulton-Winer,  59^ 

Nestle,  223 
Nosgen,  61,  108,  208 

Oehler,  48 
Olshausen,  106,  208 

Palmer,  R.,  287 
Paulus,  io8^  109 
Pfleiderer,  162,  165 


332  The  Designations  of  Our  Lord 


Plummer,  A.,  66,  98,  99,  100,  102, 
io6^  107,  ii6®,  118,  II9^  171, 
211 

Poly  carp,  Martyrdom  of,  270 
Porter,  T.  C.,  297 
Preuschen,  171 

Rackham,  206,  208 
Rashdall,  219 
Renan,  302 
Rendall,  208 

Riehm,  276,  278®,  279®,  280“  281 
Riggenbach,  E.,  171,  173 
Robinson,  J.  Armitage,  13®,  22®,  80, 
84,  1 1 5,  222,  223,  247,  250 
Ross,  A.  E.,  296 
Rushbrooke,  W.  G.,  149 

Salkinson,  67 
Salmond,  42 

Sanday,  82,  119,  133,  169,  172,  174, 
195,  198,  223,  229,  230,  240®, 
242,  249 

Sanders,  Frank  K.,  159 
Schaeder,  Erich,  145 
Schanz,  105,  106 
Schegg,  105 
Schenkel,  18,  167 
Schlatter,  145,  171,  173 
Schmidt,  N.,  24,  37,  160,  166,  169, 
170 

Schmidt,  Richard,  234,  236 
Schmiedel,  36,  160,  162,  168,  170, 
171,  174 

Schmiedel-Winer,  59,  240,  245 
Schmiedel,  O.,  146 
Schoettgen,  7 
Schurer,  113,  126 
Schwartzkopff,  166 
Smith,  W.  B.,  163,  165 
Somerville,  D.,  47®,  227,  228,  234 
Spitta,  270® 

Stanton,  41®,  42,  47,  48,  55,  67,  107, 
133,  136,  167,  173,  2i7»  222, 
285,  297,  301 
Stead,  F.  Herbert,  243 
Steck,  259 
Stier,  186 
Strauss,  i8 


Streatfeild,  G.  S.,  40 , 46,  loi 
Stuart,  Moses,  211 
Suetonius,  65 

Swete,  6,  7®,  8,  12,  13,  16,  19,  22, 
23»  40»  43»  47i  52,  244,  285, 
290,  294® 

Talmud,  Babylonian,  17 
Tertullian,  237 
Thayer-Grimm,  76 
Tillman,  Fritz,  24,  31. 

Trench,  69 

van  Manen,  259 
van  Oosterzee,  208 
Vernes,  167 
Volz,  43 

von  Soden,  151,  153®,  240,  270® 
Vos,  G.,  282,  283,  285 

Weinel,  221,  259 

Weiss-Meyer,  8,  9,  10,  6i,  65,  106, 
io8\  109,  no,  H2®,  117,  119, 
123®,  169,  227,  241,  251,  255, 

273 

Weiss,  J.,  41 
Weisse,  167 

Wellhausen,  6,  7,  10®,  15,  18,  20®, 
22,  24,  43,  44,  53,  54^  60,  66, 
67,  loo,  153 

Wendt-Meyer,  206,  208,  219 
Wernle,  220,  221®,  260 
Westcott,  6,  7,  20,  76,  178,  182,  184, 
186,  191,  271®,  273,  274® 
Westcott-Hort,  218,  240 
Wettstein,  67,  270 
Winer,  59,  21 1,  240,  245,  246 
Wittichen,  167 
Woolsey,  T.  D.,  69,  104 
Wrede,  158,  165,  175,  221®,  260 
Wiinsche,  67 

Zahn,  24®,  43,  62,  69,  70®,  76,  78®, 
79®,  80®,  8i®,  82,  172 
Zeller,  23,  167 

Zigabenus,  Euthymius,  40,  105 
Ziemssen,  Reinhold,  132,  140,  141, 
144 


•V 


Date  Due 


ACULTY 

: IV 

^ii;pi.|..y»WI«»i 

1^^ 

7 "T*^ 

\ ■ 

JUN  3 0 j 

'/?nt 

f 

